Proof of God's Existence?

Human Eye - Cross Section
Human Eye - Cross Section

Strong Evidences for God's Existence

So you want "proof" of God's existence? Not found here, but I'll give you some pretty sound evidences:

I am always drawn like a magnet to science and biological topics. One day I became aware of something in the human eyeball that is called the "fovea." The fovea is a small depression about 1/2 to 1 millimeter wide at the back of the eye, situated on the natural line of sight from the lens. This area is depressed, because of the absence of several things, such as blood vessels, rods, and other cells. The unique thing about this curious aberration is that it helps us to see detail.

Covering the back half of the inner eye is the retina. It is full of blood vessels, rods and cones, and supporting cells. One thing about it, though, is that the rods and cones are at the back of this layer. In other words, light and images we see have to pass through all the other material first, before arriving at these visual receptors. The result? Less visual acuity. But where this depression is -- the fovea -- these materials move aside to let images coming through the lens go directly to the cones, the cells that interpret color. In addition, there's an extra helping of cones. Hence, we see rich detail.

I got to thinking about this phenomenon, wondering how something like this could evolve on its own, or through the process of natural selection. Then, after it was a finely-perfected machine, I wondered how the genes knew where to place this fovea. What are the chances that it was first placed conveniently at the back of the eyeball, and how long would it take, through natural selection, to find its way to the back? In fact, how could "natural selection" play a role in this type of evolution? The existence of the fovea seems to be the result of a complex cooperation of elements all at the same spot: first, a motive for its existence; next, its position in the line of sight; the fact that it occurred in the eyeball; the absence of blood vessels, rods and other materials; its shape; the increased number of cones (50% of the information processed by the optic nerve comes from the fovea, while the rest of the retina supplies the other 50%).

Recently, I voiced these thoughts while visiting my eye doctor: I pointed to his poster on the wall that showed a cross-section of the human eye, asking about the fovea. His response: "The more you get into molecular biology, the more you have to accept the idea that there has to be some kind of "intelligent design." (This doctor, if you need references, is with the Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah.)

Here's another phenomenon that scientists cannot explain, but only attribute it to "some kind of intelligence:"

To the side of the fovea is the optic nerve. Visual acuity is impossible at the point where the nerve leaves the eyeball as it connects to the brain. The reason we can see things in that spot, though, is because the optic nerve of each eye is offset at opposing angles to the line of sight. So one eye (or, better said, that area of the brain) will make up for what the other eye (area of the brain) doesn't see.

To find your blind spot, refer to the "Blind Spot Test Image" above. Place yourself 8 to 10 inches away from the image. Close your right eye, and look at the top line of characters. Scan the letters back and forth until the dot to the left disappears. Adjust your distance from the image until the dot disappears while you are looking at the letter "E." When you look to the left of the E, you will see the dot. When you look to the right of the E, you will again see the dot, indicating that it has not left your peripheral vision, but that you've encountered your optic nerve blind spot. The second line is for your other eye.

The phenomenon I'm referring to is that when you ceased to see the dot, the area wasn't filled with blackness, like what blind people see. If you do this same test on the white lines, the blind spot will now change from "white" to "black." If you were to test this on a colored background, the blind spot would turn the color of the background. On a background of various patterns, you would not notice a break in those patterns. If you were to hold up a pen in the vertical position, it may not even seem to disappear from view, probably because of this same compensation the brain seems to supply: as the top and bottom halves of the pen are not blocked out, then the brain makes up for what's in the blind spot, even with just one eye! If you were to hold the pen toward you so that it became just a dot, it would disappear. But by putting it vertically, while maintaining your distance, the whole thing reappears.

One more thing about what we see: How were "cones" made naturally, so that we can see colors? How did they coordinate their data-gathering capability with the brain, to help us see those colors? Weren't the rods -- the black-and-white receptors -- sufficient to help us see things in our environment that would be necessary for our survival? If you can answer that scientifically, my hat comes off to you, and I'll send you a dozen cookies, or roses, whichever you prefer (only the first three successful participants will be rewarded).

These are only a few things of many that tell me there is something more out there than what the eye can see. If people want "proof" that God -- or "intelligent design" is out there, I think this comes the closest. Of course, the existence of a god cannot be "proven" scientifically at this point in time, but I think this is one of the strongest and most irrefutable of evidences.

More by this Author

Comments 53 comments

Alexander Mark profile image

Alexander Mark 5 years ago from beautiful, rainy, green Portland, Oregon

There is no way "natural selection" would have evolved so many things. One thing that stuns me is the idea that evolution would create separate sexes at all. Of course what also stuns me is the lack of imagination that goes into evolution. Evolutionists seem to think that all life that evolves would naturally be like the kind found on our planet: air breathing, bipedal and so on.

I agree the eyes are way too complex to have arisen through mutation and accident. I am extremely grateful for my vision, I can see so many beautiful things and as you explained so well, eyes are masterpieces of Creation.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Good point, on creating different sexes!

ladyjane1 profile image

ladyjane1 5 years ago from Texas

What an interesting hub really kept me catpivated and made me think about something that I never knew existed. Great argument for the existance of God, Great job. Voted up for you. Cheers.

An informed reader 5 years ago

Complexity does not prove the existence of a creator. Just because a human cannot understand the eye does not mean that it did not arise by chance.

In response to the assertion that animals do not need to see color, you are grossly misinformed. Humans see color so that they can distinguish between venomous and non-venomous plants.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Actually, I didn't use the the word "proof." I only asserted that this was a strong evidence, and I also merely quoted the words of a doctor who is quite convinced of a "designer," not through a religious dogma, but through his exposure to nuclear biology.

Thank you for your correction, though, on the importance of color. I am always open to new things.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

Hello SamboRambo

As I am about to offer an argument against your position, I want to be clear that I lean towards a created universe myself although I don't profess to know, but to be fair. . .

There is evidence that the 'design' concept can extend only to the dna structures themselves and not to their products like eyeballs and gender.

Case in point, the giraffe. If this creature was intelligently designed, there is serious indication of poor design. The giraffes mandibular nerve (from brain to jaw) runs down the length of his neck, around the clavicle and back up to the jaw. Clearly a better route would have been from the brain direct to the jaw. This feature is one of the clearest arguments for evolutionary forces I have yet heard.

I personally don't find the wonder in individual organs, (Octopii and squid have better designed eyes)

I find the wonder in dna itself, which is capable of creating self perpetuating, self differentiating task specific machines without any external input other than nutrients. These machines are able to adapt over time to a multitude of environments.

That's a miracle whether it was an accident or intentional.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Anton, I enjoyed your comments and I'm impressed with your knowledge of biology.

I thought it was a given to suppose that when I'm talking about the eye - or any other part or function of the body - I'm really addressing the dna issue, as I know this is where all the building blueprints are. And the existence of the dna codes that create the fova and tell it where to reside makes it even more of a miracle for me.

That's amazing about the giraffe's mandibular nerve. Could you give me a reference on that bit of knowledge?

For most of my life, I've been convinced of two things: that I lived before this life, and that I (along with you) helped to create this world and all that in them are. I believe that God, when He created the world, did two things: He directed the progress of evolutionary change, and He used us to help Him. Where I got that from is another long story, but I'll just give one of my reasons now: God's not going to do all the work while we just sit by and watch. He's the type that will use a force if it's available to him, and considering the vast mini-universes within each cell and the variations for each species of life, I'm thinking that many billions or trillions of man-hours went into the creation. I don't wish to downplay God's powers, but I feel that the possession or extent of certain powers is directly proportional to the number of people who faithfully carry out your orders.

Because I feel that we helped in the creation, it doesn't surprise me that the giraffe's mandibular nerve is a bit exaggerated.

Going one step further, if god were to create perfect bodies, He would have made us immortal, and He wouldn't have created virii and other things that get us sick. But because there is sickness, it means that it's here for a reason, which also doesn't surprise me when I hear about the giraffe's mandibular nerve.

Thank you for the stimulating conversation.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

Very kind. The knowledge is only what I have read and therefore not conclusive

The source for the giraffe was a television show, featuring Richard Dawkins (I do not share his conclusions, just as an aside) And I've gotten my terms wrong. It is the laryngeal nerve that wraps down into major vessels in the chest before it returns up. This is apparently a feature of more than the giraffe, but is particularly enigmatic in a giraffe. The program is online. I found it just now typing "giraffe mandibular nerve + evolution" into google

However I agree with you as well, that the flaws are necessary in the design.

And can you imagine a purley human designer doing better than dNA? We can't even make a tire that lasts more than a couple of years doing exactly what it was designed to do.


SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

If we helped in the creation, we probably had more knowledge, or access to some type of manual. Also, once a dna double helix was made, the rest of us made copies and built on that, so to not re-invent the wheel; we just added specified touches, or our own personal twists. When I see a flower with only one petal (a lily?) I'm thinking it's the result of some creative and adventurous person. I'm probably the one that put the nerve down the giraff's neck, knowing me.

Rad Man 5 years ago

SamboRambo, please help me understand what you are talking about. We helped with evolution? "I'm probably the that put the nerve down the giraffe's neck" Do you have any evidence of such things or are you just trying to make sense of your surroundings?

Your article was very interesting, but just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Please see

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

You can just call me Sam.

My evidence that we helped in the creation comes from biblical hints, from certain doctrine of my own religion, (although others of my religion don't necessarily agree with me), and from my personal idea of what kind of entity God is. I realize that I am very imaginative in my interpretations, and therefore cannot prove my position, and I also admit that my evidence is not very strong. But I cannot ignore the logic of what my philosophy offers.

When I said I was probably the one who goofed on the giraffe's nerve, I was mostly being facetious.

As my explanations will be lengthy, I will forego putting those here. I will take advantage of the time by making it another hub, as I'm participating in the one hub per day challenge. I will name it "Did I Help to Create the World?"

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Rad Man, I also wanted to say that I clicked on your two references. The first one did not take me to anything productive: I got a "This does not exist" message, or something similar. The YouTube one presented credible arguments for evolution. In my article above, I did not discount evolution; I suggested it was directed by something intelligent (more specifically in one of my comments). But the YouTube presentation did not address the issue of the fovea, the center of my argument for this article.

You asked if I had evidences. I respond with, Do you have evidences that evolution was NOT directed by certain intelligences?

Rad Man 5 years ago

There are many arguments against intelligent design. Science still has many gaps. These gaps will eventually be filled in. The fovea acts like a camera lens and enables the animal to focus on a particular object for clear perception without sacrificing visual contact with the objects surroundings. The fovea appears in anthropoid primates. Did we become better hunters and gatherers as a result of the fovea or did the fovea appear by accident and the resulting primate would have an advantage and have more babies like himself. I don't know, but someone does I'm sure.

As for evidence evolution was not directed by certain intelligences. I see no proof in God. The bible and the Kur'an are flawed and riddled with inconsistencies. These books are the only proof that god exists. Well they would be proof if they were flawless. I see no intelligence in a child in pain. I see no intelligence in the human body. I see a lot of people with lower back problems because our entire upper body is held in place by a vertebrae. You don't see 4 legged creatures with back pain. Just the ones that want to stand on 2 legs. I see no intelligence in the fact that at age 40 humans start to loose there ability to see up close. Perhaps we don't need to survive after we raise our children. I see no intelligence in the fact the human males carry the genitalia on the outside of our bodies. I know why they're there, but I don't understand why anyone would put them there. The giraffe's nerve mentioned above is a very good example.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Some Christians will agree that adversity is good; to help us grow. That should provide the first step toward credibility. Even Paul gloried in his infirmities. Second, many believe the Bible is inconsistent because of the passage of time, and the errors in translation. There's the second step.

If you read my article about the innocent, you would have read my conversation with an atheist. That should help us with the third step, accepting that the world and everything therein needs to be imperfect.

The Bible itself admits that imperfection entered into the world because of the original sin: if Adam had not sinned, and had stayed in the garden, eating of the tree of life, he would have lived forever. Also, all women were doomed to a more painful delivery of babies because of that. To boot, Adam was told he would now have to sweat while working with thorns and weeds.

Therefore, I don't see anything that would discredit the things the Bible teaches.

Actually, as I've said before and in other areas, I don't think we can prove that the Bible's teachings are the absolute truth, just as we can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Christianity promotes "faith." There would be no opportunity to develop faith and trust, if we had a perfect knowledge. So there's another step in giving credence to the Bible.

Dawkins 5 years ago

Are you dense? The 747 in a junkyard argument, a frequently disproved idiot's last resort. Let your delusions go...

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Dawkins, is that response copyrighted? Can I use it when I want to refute something?

AKA Winston 5 years ago

(What are the chances that it was first placed conveniently at the back of the eyeball, and how long would it take, through natural selection, to find its way to the back?)


I think you are making a fairly common error in thinking about the natural selection process - natural selection does not start with an idea for an improvement and then figure out where it should go and how to make it work.

The entire theory of evolution by natural selection is based on small incremental changes, and that change can be from one type use to another.

A perfect example is the bacteria flagellum, which is the crowning argument for Intelligent Design made by Michael Behe in his 1998 book. Unfortunately for Behe, science has since discovered that the exact same proteins with fewer moving parts are used in a bacterial injector system, which would be the precursor to the flagellum, only the precursor had nothing to do with mobility and motion of the organism. Of course, the ID argument was that no part of the flagellum could be removed from the whole without making it unviable - obviously, that was not the case.

The same argument defeats the claim that a mousetrap is irreducably complex - it is irreducably complex only if you assume that a complete, functioning mousetrap is the only way it can be used. But if you take away the spring, the entire mousetrap can be used as a tie clasp.

This is often how natural selection works. Just the base of the mousetrap, a piece of wood, used as a paperweight. A mutation adds the clasp and spring. Tie clasp. Firther mutation adds the catch. Fully functioning mousetrap.

AKA Winston 5 years ago

Appendix to comment:

The bacterial system is called the TTSS system, used by gram negative bacteria.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, thank you for your comments. It's possible that I used the wrong term when I said "natural selection." When I used it, I was, in fact, trying - not to disprove it, but - to suggest we didn't get our fovea through natural selection. I know little enough of that and the evolution premises to easily stumble on the usage of their inherent terms.

I know you gave me a thorough and illustrated description of why I erred in my usage, but I must confess I didn't completely understand everything you said, or if you agree or disagree with the idea the article proffers.

My main goal wasn't to try to prove anything, but merely present items that indicate strong evidences, such as the statement of that eye doctor mentioned in the text.

Please feel free to add to your comments; I would be interested in learning exactly what you are trying to tell me, as I'm a sponge for knowledge of any kind, especially in the scientific realm.

AKA Winston 5 years ago


Concerning the eye I'll let Charles Darwin speak for himself. From "Origin of Species":

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

If you are truly interested in knowledge about evolutionary science, I highly recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is old enough and well-known enough that it should be available at your local library. It is invaluable in understanding how evolution and natural selection work.

Btw, I do not fault you or your eye doctor for the conclusion of design - if you haven't made a sincere study of biological evolution (which physicians are not required to do), then the understanding that overcomes the initial incredulousness of doubt and replaces it with an awe in the acts of nature itself, unaided by any divine guidance or intervention, is not available. Without that knowledge, we fall prey to common sense, which we learned after Gallileo proved the earth beneath our feet is not stationary as our common sense senstations tell us, is not a trustworthy source of knowledge.

Jesus was a hippy profile image

Jesus was a hippy 5 years ago from United Kingdom

Wow, just wow. Such ignorance astonishes me. Anyone who bothered to do the research would be able to find all the transitional types of eye from simple light sensitive cells in small organisms all the way through the more and more complex types of eye until reaching the most complex.

And if we were created to be so brilliant, then why do eagles have better eyesight then us? Why do spiders have 8 eyes so that can see 360 degrees? Why do lizards have independent eyes when we can only look in one direction at a time?

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Oops, hold on Hippy! What's this "Such ignorance..." bit? That isn't you! I mean, you tend to not accept certain evidences because of your ability to scrutinize the facts; that's what I'm doing, so how am I different from you?

Now, in the scrutinizing you do, have you come to a scientific proof of your conclusions?

I'm waiting.......

Well, it appears you haven't achieved scientific proof. You've reached a theory, for sure, but nothing that proves that God doesn't exist. Why, then, do you use the word "ignorance?" I have used my facts and theories the same way evolutionists have used theirs. Which one of us is more ignorant? Both of us use facts, both of us make conclusions, and both of us admit that it is, by far, not good enough for proof.

Jesus was a hippy profile image

Jesus was a hippy 5 years ago from United Kingdom


Sorry, I was overwhelmed with the amount of americans who took this to be PROOF of a god. (You never said which god by the way.)

The human eye, is proof of the human eye and nothing more.

Anything you infer from that is nothing more than your own inference or imagination if you will.

Your conclusion is based on your inference. Evolutionary theory has mountains of fossils to back up its claim that species evolve. All you have is your imagination.

As for you asking me to disprove god, are you really going to put that tired old fallacy to the forefront AGAIN? Can you disprove unicorns? Is that a reason to believe they exist?

That is not logic and by no means are you using the same methods as "evolutionists" as you call them.

They use evidence and facts. You use your own inference.

I can do that too. The human eye is proof of the flying spaghetti monster. See my point? It isn't proof at all.

Jesus was a hippy profile image

Jesus was a hippy 5 years ago from United Kingdom


My bad, I apologise. I have just been presented with the whole "the eye is too complicated to have evolved" argument so many times I just expected it.

As for you thinking that someone or something is influencing mutations, that again is just your own inference.

Are bad mutations gods work too?

To touch on the "closed mind" topic. I am open to any new evidence. I accept every possibility.

Placing an unfounded belief is closing your mind to anything that contradicts that belief.

Rad Man 5 years ago

I have to say Rambo, as much as I appreciate your desire to marry religion and science. Your resistance is futile. Catholics try (only when they had no more control over governments) to rationalize what is said in the bible with what science has discovered. The dark ages are over. What remains is the evidence. All of the holy books are filled with flaws. These books are the only evidence. Someone feeling there is a god is not evidence. If I say Santa exists does that make it so? No. I can't prove there is no God. Can you prove there is no Santa. Presents just appeared last christmas. It was a miracle. Logic dictates that God was created by Man, not the other way around.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Hippie, I started some comments before you responded, then I tried to erase them so I could give a chronological response to your post. They're still here on my page, but I hope they're invisible to you. I'll go ahead as if they're gone:

I'd like to call your attention to semantics: You said "The human eye is proof of the human eye, nothing else." Remember that I used the word "evidence," not "proof." When I DID use the word proof, I promptly said, "Not found here."

So the human eye can plausibly be used as an "evidence" for a god, but not "proof." So I'm with you there.

Note that I did not use the "Prove there is no god" trick in my article, nor in my comments, as you accused me of doing. I only said something akin to it to attack your accusation of me, not to "prove" there is a god. And I hope and insist that my usage of the physical facts around me, and my own spiritual experiences (shown later) are not as carelessly thrown together as your example of the "flying spagghetti monster."

Regarding my "ignorance:" In nothing I said did I suggest that the eye didn't develop through the millennia. I also didn't deny that there was evolution. My main idea is that God, or an intelligent designer, probably caused the mutations that helped the eye to develop. I don't see how this labels me as "ignorant," especially in light of the fact (to me it's a fact; to you it's nothing more than a claim) that I have had conversations by a being outside my sphere of physical experience. You may call me crazy for that, but that's okay; it doesn't change the fact that I'm using information from my own experience to draw a conclusion. There's no rule against doing that, and it's not considered an ignorant act. Also, I have received knowledge from a source other than myself that I otherwise would not have known.

This kind of phenomena demands a respect for the spiritual. To not have respect for it, or leave it out of my equasions would be, in my opinion, an "ignorant" oversight. My mind, which is prone to respect the scientific arena, helps me to blend the spiritual with the physical. Because I can't deny the physical evidence that suggests there was evolution, then I feel obligated to try to marry the separate worlds in some plausible way. I am convinced that some day science and religion will be reading from the same page. This has to be considered more optimism than ignorance.

I have my own idea of who God is, but this is a moot point. We should all be content to decide that if there is a god, his true identity and nature will some day be known to all.

By the way, you may interested in knowing I'm not close-minded: I have already purchased the book that Winston has suggested (the Blind Watchmaker). I was going to wait to make further comments until I read the book, but your comments (which I welcome, by the way), have moved me to start.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Hippy and Rad, I'll address your questions about "bad" mutations and the Bible being flawed. I, in fact, addressed this issue in an earlier comment which you (Rad Man) didn't respond to (I put it there in response to your post proffering the same problems), but I'll review it here. However, I strongly recommend you read that post (written approx. 13 days ago).

One thing I mentioned was my conversation with an atheist (found in "Do the Innocent Really Suffer?"). This should give logical credibility to why there is a need for infirmities in this world.

The Bible did not say that it, as a tome, was perfect. People gave it that classification. Therefore, the Bible can't be judged by what people say about it, and the argument that it is flawed cannot be used to judge the concepts therein.

AKA Winston 5 years ago


At its basis, all knowledge is intuitive, and most of our knowledge is taught to us. Direct knowledge requires intuitive trust that our senses are accurate while taught knowledge requires intuitive belief that the teachers are providing best information that makes sense to us or we can learn how it makes sense.

I can certainly understand how complexity appears designed. I spent much of the weekend reading the testimony of Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller v Dover Board of Education trial, and there is no doubt that Professor Behe is a highly-educated and intelligent man.

At the same time, it is impossible to read through that questioning and not get a sense of understanding for his personal bias for creationism, which he seems unaware of and unable to separate from his scientific self.

In his testimony he admitted that natural selection and evolution satisfactorily explain many if not most of nature - but in certain highly complex areas, he sees the hand of design, and thus an intelligent designer seems to him a better explanation than natural selection.

The problem all of us have is in human pattern recognition, at which we humans are champions. We see all sorts of correlations, most where nothing of the sort exists. We look at an end result and it looks like an intelligence must have put these pieces together to make this thing work in just this way for this purpose.

But we fail to understand that we are adding an anthropomorphic attribute to mindless activity - we are claiming an end design was thought out before the parts were put together.

But that is not how evolution works. Evolution does not start out saying, hmmm, this escherichia coli bacteria needs a way to move, so I'll add this little rotary motor mechanism - the flagellum - and let it propel itself.

No, one of the precursors of the flagellum is the TTSS injector system, which is used by gram negative bacteria to inject a host cell, like a syringe on a spring apparatus. The requisite proteins are in the TTSS system, as in the flagellum. Somewhere along the way, a mutation occurred which altered the TTSS from an injector to a motor, causing the needle part to spin instead of thrust.

Can we prove that? No. But it is evidence that the system is not irreducibly complex, and it is evidence of how the flagellum may have come about by natural selection. It is certainly at this point more evidence than there is for a creating designer.

Remember, the only evidence we have for a designer is that it "looks designed". We made the same kind of scientific mistakes before - when we looked up into the sky and felt the earth beneath our feets "it looked like the sun moved and it felt like the earth was motionless."

I hope you find the book useful - it is considered a classic in its field.

Druid Dude profile image

Druid Dude 5 years ago from West Coast

Excellent hub. Knew I wouldn't be disappointed. Here is something I wonder about evolution. Why haven't we lost the appendix? No use. Hasn't been for a very long time, yet, we still have it.

Rad Man 5 years ago

Druid Dude, you clearly don't understand evolution. Lets just say the appendix has no purpose. I think it does have a purpose, but for the sake of argument lets just I has no purpose. An individual would have to be born without an appendix. Having no appendix would have to be favorable for him to procreate and pass on his genetics (no appendix) to his or her offspring. But, since having no appendix is not beneficial, it stays where it is.

The color of our skin is proof of evolution. The farther we migrate from the equator the lighter peoples skin is. We have adapted this as to absorb vitamin D from the sun. Imagine if you will, the first people migrating up Europe. The individual born with lighter skin would be stronger because of the extra vitamin D and people born with darker skin would be ill. There really is no advantage of white skin other than absorbing vitamin D faster.

Jaydeus profile image

Jaydeus 5 years ago from Springfield, TN

Think of how HUGE the universe is. Then think of how small and insignificant we are compared to the WHOLE of the known universe, and how non-obstructive of any part of that universe outside of our tiny blue dot we are. Unless existence is just a game played by a cruel higher being(which I often determine the case to be), you have to accept the facts that point towards our unsubstantial impact on eternity thus far. If our human methods of science prove to hold any water, we must acknowledge that the universe is ridiculously old, obscenely large(possibly infinite), and far too much for our primitive young minds to comprehend.

So you don't get why the eye works? I am sure that there is a civilization somewhere in this local cluster of galaxies that has been around for exponentially longer than our planet has existed and has unraveled the mysteries and understanding of life that our species has yet to grasp.

I do not negate the possible existence of a ''God'', but rather push the fact that whatever it may be is far more than we can comprehend and we as a species of inward observation and thought should focus on weeding out such things that would have us destroy ourselves versus pondering the selfish man-made truths that one sub-race of Homo Sapiens should be superior based on conclusions gathered from teachings and miracles that are so old no-one has a relative that had a great-grand parent that heard stories about their grandpappy's observation of said miracle.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

People do have finite ideas on matters that are tremendously huge and complex. I'm sure that whatever is "out there," it's nothing like we imagine it to be.

Even our take on evolution, though carefully studied and worked out with unfailing dedication and scrutiny, receives our finite conclusions, for not having larger, more comprehensive minds and experience. Our conclusions seem to make sense to us because of our comparatively limited capacities, but I'm thinking (in my finite way) that there is a lot more to this issue than what meets the eye.

DavitosanX profile image

DavitosanX 5 years ago

About the appendix, brought up by Druid dude, I think it's a good example of evolution. It's a vestigial organ, meaning that it used to have a function, but since it apparently didn't grant us any advantage, we are slowly but surely losing it. We are still in the process of "evolving it away". We haven't lost it yet, but it's becoming smaller. Many generations from now, it will go away.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

I've read about 1/3 of "Blind Watchmaker." I have a few comments on it, but it's so large, that I thought, why not use my time productively and make another hub of it? So it's found here:

AKA Winston 5 years ago

Hi, Sam,

Here is another perspective on the fovea that makes it seem not nearly so miraculous. From

("When you move away from the fovea, visual acuity falls away really quickly, and colour vision disappears," says Rensink. About 10 degrees to the side of the fovea, visual acuity is only about 20 per cent of the maximum.

What that means is you can only capture a tiny percentage of the visual field in full colour and detail at any one time. Hold your hand at arm's length and look at your thumbnail. That is roughly the area covered by the fovea. Most of the rest is captured in fuzzy monochrome.

And yet vision doesn't actually feel like this: it feels like a movie. That, in part, is because your eyes are constantly flitting over the visual scene, fixing on one spot for a fraction of a second then moving on. These jerky eye movements are called saccades and they happen about 3 times a second and last up to 200 milliseconds. With each fixation your visual system grabs a bite of high-resolution detail which it somehow weaves together to create an illusion of completeness.

That's remarkable given that during saccades themselves, you are effectively blind. Your eyes don't stop transmitting information as they lurch from one fixation to the next, but for about 100 milliseconds your brain is not processing it.)

The article explained how because of the saccades we are actually blind about 4 hours per day. Again, not a great piece of evidence for intelligence of design.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Winston, it's interesting how two people from opposing viewpoints can look at the same facts and draw a conclusion from them that supports his claims.

As I mentioned before, somewhere, I see this as an evidence of intelligence. I wouldn't *want* to see perfect detail in my peripheral vision. Like I said, I'm very ADD-challenged.

I don't know much about saccades. I read a little about it after you brought it up, but even if it exists, then it's there because of supposed reduced vision. This is a **fourth** dimension of compensation in the fovea phenomenon.

I haven't yet found in natural selection texts something that describes how many millions or billions of years it takes to arrive at a complex, convenient arrangement for any given functional biological tool. But whatever that is, I see quite a time-challenged concert going on here. I see - not a random occurrence of the fovea, but - a chronology-dependent concert of all these happening **at the same time.** If the fovea is the result of gradual random selection, what are the chances that four things in different dimensions (having different functions or properties) are done in concert that appear to be there **because** of the fovea?

These four things are: 1) The convenient position of the fovea, 2) the reduced tissue in the fovea for better perception, 3) the addition of more cones in the fovea, and now 4) the mechanism called saccades. There are other concurrent details, but I'll leave it at these four, for now.

I know my statement about "chances" above sounds like Dawkins' statement of conclusions through incredulity, but if any incredulous statement carries any amount of weight due to improbability, this would be right up there because of the multi-dimensionality of interdependent parts involved. And that, with the rest of the amazing eye.

If we are blind 4 hours per day, and we don't notice it, what's wrong with that? At the risk of sounding like I'm illiterate on the subject, I'll say: Maybe that helps us to avoid coming down with macular diseases sooner.

godsdevotee profile image

godsdevotee 5 years ago from india

AKA Winston i beg your pardon, only a few people as compared to whole earth used to think that earth was stationary.In our texts it was said from beginning that earth is revolving around sun and there are 9 planets in our solar system(and our texts are 5000years old according to all other people(except our own religion ,it was said in our texts from dawn of creation of universe everything was decided))and not even one thing in our text has been proved wrong by anyone till now and we have the oldest religion.

Rad Man 5 years ago

godsdevotee - Oh, I can't help myself here, please show me where in your texts it says the earth evolves around the sun and there are nine planets? Does it mention which planets have moons? That would be something. What does the old testament say about slavery? See Surly you don't condone slavery? If your texts are wrong about slavery then your text (have been proved wrong).

Commandment #10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Notice it doesn't say anything about not keeping a slave, just don't take someone else's slave.

godsdevotee profile image

godsdevotee 5 years ago from india

Rad man do you know which religion i am? and the light consists of seven color and test tube babies all were discovered in our religion without help of any machines? BTW im not a christian

Rad Man 5 years ago

Well godsdevotee, I was guessing you are a Jew, but the oldest Religion may in fact be Hinduism. Perhaps I was wrong and you are not Jewish. Is that why you did not comment about Commandment #10 and it's lack of understanding the horrors of Slavery?

godsdevotee profile image

godsdevotee 5 years ago from india

yes im not a jew and yes im a hindu

Rad Man 5 years ago

godsdevotee, interesting... I don't get to meet to many hindus. Although I had a neighbor that was a hindu and a very nice man. That being said, show me evidence that Hinduism knew the structure of our solar system and universe. Do you worship Surya the Hindu sun god?

godsdevotee profile image

godsdevotee 5 years ago from india

Radman if you were to study all our texts and understand it it will take your lifetime so if you want to know the basic philosophy and eyeopening truths of world just tell me ill send you an email and thanks for your politeness and yes i worship every god indirectly (because you might not know that suryadeva is a demigod and the supreme personality of godhead is vishnu on whom this entire universe depends on so im a devotee of lord shree vishnu(krsna))

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 5 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Sorry for the delay in approving comments: I've been out of commission for a while.

Perspycacious profile image

Perspycacious 4 years ago from Today's America and The World Beyond

You certainly "stirred the pot" and received the kind of attention and aroused thought which I think is the goal of most good Hubs. As for me, I believe that man evolved to the point in his creation at which (as in Michelangelo's painting) God gave him spirit. Man was then "made in God's image" and that concurrence of evolutionism and creationism is satisfying to me. Someday we will surely know more of how what is came to be. You are certainly unselfish. The time you have taken to comment and reply for this one Hub could surely have produced more such "earning Hubs." Kuddos!

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 4 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Thank you, persp, yes, it's nice to have a lot of comments. Some day, I may be able to copy these texts and do some more hub-writing.

There does seem to be scientific clues as to the existence of humans before Adam's time. And, yes, we'll know, some day, all truth, and it will be when science and religion agree.

Sagittarius 2012 profile image

Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada


Some will ask, - is the Bible not about the history of Israel?

Of course not, the first 36 chapters of Genesis tells us about the origin of races and the Nations.

The first chapter of Genesis, Genesis 1, covers billions of years, from the thought, to the creation of the first human like people.

Then, Genesis 2, moves to tells us about the creation of Adam and Ewe, and placing them in the Garden of Eden. 

According to Dr. Zarins, American anthropologist conducting excavations in Middle East,  it happened about  5000 BCE, when, after long arid stretch, come a period called Neolithic Wet Phase when rains returned to the present Persian Gulf region. 

This area became green and fertile again and the rain filled the four rivers described in this chapter.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 4 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

I'm thinking that Gen. 1 even talks about evolution. One verse says (paraphrasing), "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature, and the fowls of the air . . ." This seems to say, in the same breath, that birds came from the water (primordial soup?).

Sagittarius 2012 profile image

Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

I believe in Evolution by Creation; small changes in DNA structure done by Creator.

It always makes me wander, why some people do not understand this, having the chance to observe development of simple things, like cars or computers.

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 4 years ago from HubPages, FB

There is no such as Evolution by Creation. There exists only variation and adaptation.

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 4 years ago from HubPages, FB

The purpose for variation is we do not need to have numbers to be recognizable.

haarpti 3 years ago

UNs Code 21 Human Genome Code Redesign, HAARP, Project Blue Beam, Project Montauk (dream team), Philadelphia Experiment, and many other government programs researching the human brain, dreamhead, REM eyeball movement, brain/body radio signal, "matrix" or vacuum of space and our TV dreamhead, photonics, laser beams, nanometered gadgets, a 'life energy' manufacturing plant using brainwaves and plasma as the operator and matter while putting this manufacturing plant 'into space' through Haarp's radio towers and blue beams satellites hooked up to the power grid, radio, HDTV, cellphone, EBS towers, toasters, microwaves, car radios, car radials (steel and iron matched to body iron of blood and melted inside the body), brainwaves, etc., and many other research programs to find and "make better than God ever could" the God particle through the mutilation of souls proves God will never exist.

God will never be able to prove his existence. God and man could have done many wonderful things with life and the possibilities of the above and many other God particle options instead of the many mutilations of my life and soul I have been subjected to since I was 1 or 2. Many of these mutilations can be seen in images on my Google account.

SamboRambo profile image

SamboRambo 3 years ago from Salt Lake City, Utah Author

Haarp, I am interested in knowing about your afflictions. I invite you to either write a hub about them, or to contact me personally. But I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning behind the declaration that God cannot prove his existence.

Given the world we now live in, with its imperfections, diseases and wars, it is understandable that one cannot believe in a god. But there are possible explanations for this "secrecy" from God (if, indeed, he exists), and the misery in the world. One possible explanation is found in my hub called "Do the Innocent Really Suffer?"

Some people have been afforded the fortune of getting some type of visit from God, whether it be a direct vision, or words of wisdom from the whisperings of the "Holy Spirit." I am one of those people. I don't know why I would get it, and not you, but this is why I wrote this, and other related articles, so that you and people like you might find meaning in your suffering.

I have suffered - and continue to suffer - things that I didn't think I could survive. But because of the help from the Spirit (in knowing that a better world awaits us), I have been able to endure, while maintaining a positive attitude. Thus, I can build up others, and help them, which I have been able to do.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article