Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 16 of 242 (636448)
10-06-2011 5:20 PM


No they cant. Even a light sensitive cell requires a vast array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-06-2011 5:29 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 10-07-2011 5:12 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 17 of 242 (636449)
10-06-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
10-06-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Hi, ANI!!
quote:
Welcome to EvC!
You ask, "Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?"
Well, they DID - we see them all around us in the animal kingdom, in a couple of dozen configurations. So the answer must be, "yes, they can."
So because we have eyes today that means that they must have evolved? What evidence is there that natural selection can create an eye?
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2011 12:23 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 6:42 PM Portillo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 242 (636450)
10-06-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Portillo
10-06-2011 5:20 PM


No they cant. Even a light sensitive cell requires a vast array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function.
To be precise, one more than a non-light-sensitive cell. And since a non-light sensitive cell uses lots of biochemicals, half of your post is arguably technically true.
Don't you guys have to perform some sort of pennance to atone for that? I'm sure it was inadvertent, but even so you can't be too careful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 5:20 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 19 of 242 (636466)
10-06-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-06-2011 9:02 AM


Re: no brain needed.
Plants sense light and respond, yet they have no brain.
Many bacteria sense light and respond, yet they have no brain.
Another example is the single celled Euglena which has an eyespot. It uses this organelle to move itself into light in order to photosynthesize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-06-2011 9:02 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 20 of 242 (636470)
10-06-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Portillo
10-06-2011 5:27 PM


evolution makes sense
quote:
Welcome to EvC!
You ask, "Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?"
Well, they DID - we see them all around us in the animal kingdom, in a couple of dozen configurations. So the answer must be, "yes, they can."
So because we have eyes today that means that they must have evolved? What evidence is there that natural selection can create an eye?
No, you missed the point. Here's the important part:
quote:
we see them all around us in the animal kingdom, in a couple of dozen configurations
I italicized it.
What we have is a bunch of different types of eyes that are not related to each other. They utilize different mechanisms. All the creatures with one particular type are dissimilar to those with a different type. None of the groups with a particular type have creatures with a totally different type of eye. The evolutionary explanation is that of a nested hierarchy. All those creatures with the same eye type evolved from earlier creatures, and the particular utilized mechanism got built upon. It all makes sense and fits.
Do you have a better explanation? Why would a designer group the different eye types with specific creature groups (without one exception), in a manner that makes them look like they evolved independently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 5:27 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Portillo, posted 10-08-2011 1:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 242 (636472)
10-06-2011 6:44 PM


The vast majority of life has sense organs and no brain.
If we look at the life around us what we see is that almost all life forms have sense organs but no brain. The next largest group have sense organs but no central brain and either just nerve networks or decentralized computing centers. It's only a fairly small subset of life forms, all limited to just one Kingdom and even there the existence of a brain is not universal.
What we do find though is exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicts; we find that critters have evolved a whole set of solutions to address the issue of sensory detection.
The really important thing is that all of these various critters are a great blueprint of how various systems did evolve. Even if there were some other model that was available, and there is none, it would be hard to even imagine a better explanation than what is seen in the Theory of Evolution that explains the FACT that evolution happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2011 8:03 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 242 (636484)
10-06-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
10-06-2011 6:44 PM


skin cells
Hi Jar et al,
I always find it a little curious that people claim that cells have to evolve into eyes in order to be able to sense basic sunlight.
Your whole body is covered in cells that sense the heat and warmth of the sun, and even with a blindfold you can tell what direction the sun is, and tell when it is warm and when it is not.
Then look at the sun with your eyes closed: with your eyes closed, the complex elements of our eyes - the lens, the image making retina and the focusing muscles are not used, but you will be able to tell where the sun is in the sky.
These are simple little steps that show how light sensing can develop.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 10-06-2011 6:44 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 23 of 242 (636489)
10-06-2011 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ANI
10-06-2011 8:39 AM


You hit a bulls eye on the unlikelyness of mutations helping out such serious operations as seeing and yet still intermediate and so on.
The eye is a great case for creationism on many levels.
A evolving complexity while being useful.
The few actual options for seeing. Most eyes of creatures are exactly the same despite claims of endless evolution going on . I read there are just a few types of eyes.
If evolution was true then eye diversity and diversity of complexity would be the rule.
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences.
If the eye has been evolving like crazy in all biology then fossils should be crawling with these intermediate stages.
if fossils can't show such detail then there is no fossil evidence for eye evolution.
I want eye healing as i have historical serious issuess with my eyes.
I don't see evolution as useful for biological discovery of healing.
I do see creationism as useful if a presumption of a single equation is operating. tHen the little diversity could teach about the greater equation.
By the way saying the brain processes the info is saying nothing about mechanism.
I suspect, not sure, that the brain is not processing the info as such. i suspect its the memory that is involved.
Anyways good thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ANI, posted 10-06-2011 8:39 AM ANI has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2011 10:43 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-06-2011 11:38 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2011 8:46 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 10-07-2011 1:03 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2011 2:40 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 242 (636490)
10-06-2011 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Robert Byers
10-06-2011 10:23 PM


The few actual options for seeing. Most eyes of creatures are exactly the same despite claims of endless evolution going on . I read there are just a few types of eyes.
When you include the full range of sensing organs, that is completely incorrect.
If evolution was true then eye diversity and diversity of complexity would be the rule.
Diversity is the rule.
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences.
Your trouble here is that you are trying to narrow it down to fully formed eyes. There is a wide variety of sensing organs leading to fully formed eyes, and several different types of fully formed eyes.
If the eye has been evolving like crazy in all biology then fossils should be crawling with these intermediate stages.
if fossils can't show such detail then there is no fossil evidence for eye evolution.
Who needs fossils?
All the diversity you would ever want is found in living organisms today.
All you have to do is open your eyes!
But it seems you are deliberately blinding yourself because of your belief in ancient tribal myths. There's a couple of billion years of good productive evolution gone to waste.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 10:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 11:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 242 (636497)
10-06-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Robert Byers
10-06-2011 10:23 PM


The few actual options for seeing. Most eyes of creatures are exactly the same despite claims of endless evolution going on .
This is, of course, not true.
If evolution was true then eye diversity and diversity of complexity would be the rule.
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences.
What a splendid argument for evolution and against creationism. Thanks. I guess you'll be switching sides now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 10:23 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 26 of 242 (636498)
10-06-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
10-06-2011 10:43 PM


yes i do mean fully formed eyes.
I don't know about these sense(not quite ready for real eyes) things.
They do not tell the tale on eyesight.
In fact there are just a few types of eyes as I read.
There is not diversity whatsoever relative to the number of creatures.
If so list the type of eyes in your local zoo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2011 10:43 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 10-07-2011 12:45 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2011 1:23 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 10-07-2011 5:20 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 40 by Capt Stormfield, posted 10-07-2011 3:16 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 27 of 242 (636499)
10-07-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Robert Byers
10-06-2011 11:51 PM


Robert Byers writes:
There is not diversity whatsoever relative to the number of creatures.
If so list the type of eyes in your local zoo.
How many would I have to list to show that there is a sufficient diversity?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 11:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 242 (636505)
10-07-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Robert Byers
10-06-2011 11:51 PM


yes i do mean fully formed eyes.
Do you mean by that that you wish to rule out anything that looks like an intermediate form?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 11:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 242 (636513)
10-07-2011 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2011 11:21 AM


That's the same for humans, too. It's light sensitive for us as well.
Can't remember who but one guy from the olden days thought it was the link between mind and body.
I remember at uni there being some suggestion that the light sensitivity of the pineal gland was implicated in Seasonal Affective Disorder, simply because of it's sinsitivity to light.
Missing the fact that eyes are pretty sensitive to light, already.
Observant people, pyschologists.
Edited by Larni, : spellink

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2011 11:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2011 1:18 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 30 of 242 (636516)
10-07-2011 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Portillo
10-06-2011 5:20 PM


Even a light sensitive cell requires a vast array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function.
But fewer than an eye.
Which is the whole point of the thread.
Gradual changes, sir; gradual changes.
Edited by Larni, : spellink

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 5:20 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024