|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can sense organs like the eye really evolve? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Let's add scallops to the list.
Plenty of eyes, but no brain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's not clear that one would call that a brain.
How do you feel about sea urchins?
Body of Sea Urchin Is One Big Eye :
Genetic analysis of sea urchins has revealed they have light-sensitive molecules, mostly in their tube feet and in tiny stalked appendages found in among their spines. As such, "it looks like the entire surface of their bodies are acting as one big eye," said researcher Snke Johnsen, a marine biologist at Duke University. [...] "Sea urchins have a pretty diffuse nerve net, where no region looks like a central processing unit as far as we can tell."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can't remember who but one guy from the olden days thought it was the link between mind and body. Descartes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well again i read there are just a few types of eyes. Now this is a perfect illustration of why you shouldn't read things written by liars and fools. The broadest classification might distinguish between eyespots, pit eyes, lensed eyes, multiple lensed eyes, reflector eyes, apposition compound eyes, refracting superposition eyes, reflecting superposition eyes, parabolic superposition eyes ... but those are only fairly crude classifications. When you look at the details, thee's more diversity still. For example, squid and mammals both have simple lensed eyes, but in mammals the focus is changed by changing the shape of the lens whereas in squid the same function is served by moving it backwards and forwards. Or to take another subdivision, trilobites have appositional compound eyes, but unlike everything else with appositional compound eyes their eyes had hard lenses. And then there are the complete weirdos like copepods ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Nope. in fact modern evolutionists try to teach THERE is transitional features as opposed to transitional creatures. they gave up on the latter ... Is this something else you read somewhere or did you make it up all by yourself?
Go to your zoo and look at all those eyes and you will conclude they are from the same model. If the zoo happens to only contain mammals, then one would indeed correctly conclude that. Otherwise, not so much.
It seems so unlikely even to imagine that mutations could keep pushing to such common conclusions he things called eyes in all creatures. It is in fact not merely unlikely but impossible for evolution to have produced the world that you have made up in your head. But the question is whether it is responsible for phenomena in the real world, the one that actually exists.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are saying mammals have different kinds of eyes? No, I said the exact opposite.
I read everywhere there are just a few types. And, as I have pointed out, what you read was a lie.
these divisions of yours are trivial. You think the difference between a lensed simple eye and a reflecting superpositional compound eye is "trivial"? What differences would you think were consequential?
Just having a lens is evidence of a single idea . And many of the types of eye that I listed do not have lenses. Instead they have a wide variety of substitutes.
You guys are strangely, or not, running from the commonness of eye types. Just as we would run from the fiveness of two plus two.
In fact I believe Darwin mentioned this to teach all coming from a common origin! Your belief is untrue. What an enormous surprise ... you having a belief that isn't true. I'm staggered. Darwin did not in fact adduce the fantasy world in your head as evidence for anything, because he did not live in your head. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The book was called "Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism" under the chapter "Transitional forms" versus Transitional features. What are you talking about?
Reptiles are very alike and so on. The insects are only different in some ways. Specifically, they are different in having a completely different kind of eye.
In fact a evolutionist would have to say that despite millions of years of massive evolution in 'mammals" we all kept the eyes of the first few mammals. Hey, look, you said something true! That's exactly what I did say.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I simply point out that the lack of diversity in eye types is unlikely if evolution was true. Which is why this imaginary lack of diversity doesn't exist.
Then I add all eyes , deeply, are showing a single concept to sight. And this is not true. Moreover it is written in the prose style of an instruction manual for a Korean washing-machine, can't you do anything about this? --- Now, here's an idea. Please suggest two possible basic designs for functional eyes which are more different from one another than the differences between the types of eyes found in nature. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Its a evolutionary speculative idea that creatures in evolutionary lineages have the same eyes. Rather creatures simply have like eyes for like needs. These needs are reflected in many aspects of their anatomy. So then evolution invents they are evolutionary connected. Really? Why do humans and elephants alike "need" a blindspot while squid don't? Why do humans, apes, and Old World monkeys need one sort of three-color vision while New World monkeys need another? Are colors different in South America?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You guys are still running from the lack of diversity in eyesight. There are just a few types . compound , single etc,. most large creatures, or all, have the same eyes as me. The differences relative to the glory of the eye are silly trivialities. And yet you have not answered my question, which I repeat:
Please suggest two possible basic designs for functional eyes which are more different from one another than the differences between the types of eyes found in nature. You keep saying how similar they are, and yet you cannot imagine anything more dissimilar. And your silence on this point speaks louder than your words.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
These are very trivial points. Then perhaps you could answer them instead of evading them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
UH? My point is that in the literature eyesight is organized into just a few varieties. All'mammals" have the same eyes and they would say from a common origin that had the original eyes. not every mammal evolved its own eye type. We are off the same rack on eyeballs. The same great complexity of sight is held by all mammals. Small details are irrelevant to its essence as a machine. Insects etc have other types but still just a few models. It hints at a single equation and further hints at a single creator and further the impossibility of random evolution with mutation creating siuch a complex machine in such fantastic convergant results, Shall I take that as a "no" then? So stop pretending that they're all very similar, when you can't even imagine a greater degree of diversity than they actually exhibit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024