|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can sense organs like the eye really evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
In fact there are just a few types of eyes as I read. So because you yourself have limited knowledge on the subject of biodiversity you conclude you must be right. What a fucking stupid position to have. Here's a quick test. Without looking it up on wiki, what is the difference between a spider's and a wasp's eyes? If you don't know this random fact about eyes how can you possibly pontificate about limited diversity?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Robert Byers,
The eye is a great case for creationism on many levels. A great case, indeed, all of it badly considered with much misinformation.
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. Yeah, silly evolutionists, when the obvious is staring them in the face: Investigator: Eye's Silly Design Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
You hit a bulls eye on the unlikelyness of mutations helping out such serious operations as seeing and yet still intermediate and so on. Where is the evidence to support this assertion?
Most eyes of creatures are exactly the same despite claims of endless evolution going on . Evidence please.
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences.
Then why are the cephalopod and vertebrate eye wired in completely different ways? http://www.bio.davidson.edu/...%20the%20cephalopod%20eye.htm Both are "camera lens" style eyes, so why are they so different? Even more, why does the type of eye that one has depend on whether or not the creature has a backbone? Why do we always find one type of eye in creatures that have backbones, and another type of eye in creatures that do not have backbones? How does creationism explain this? Evolution does explain this relationship, but creationism does not.
If the eye has been evolving like crazy in all biology then fossils should be crawling with these intermediate stages.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
And you guys gave me a bunch of negatives for my initial response to the OP.
It was obvious from the beginning that the OP had certain qualities: (1) Almost a total lack of understanding of evolutionary biology... or general biology in that matter. (2) Mind already made up... GODDUNIT! (3) Will not listen to any evidence brought up. (4) At some point, will fall back to argument from incredulity. (5) Declares victory and run away. You guys should have trusted me more. This thread was a waste of cyberspace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Descartes That's the johnny! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well I gave you a things up.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences. Trilobite eyes were compound eyes with freakin' crystalline calcite lenses. That seems more than a little different from mammal eyes - single with protein-water lenses. You are Making Shit Up as usual, Robert.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And IIRC (but I'm old and so forgetful) there were three totally different major types of eyes in the trilobites with about a half dozen each variations within each type.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
I don't know about these sense(not quite ready for real eyes) things. For future reference, those "not quite ready" types of anatomic features are generally referred to as "transitional" forms. You may be familiar with the term, as most creationists deny their existence. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Capt Storm writes:
Actually, no. All features are transitional features. Or one could argue that there is no such thing as transitional features because the term itself refers to an "in-between" feature, and there is no such thing. For future reference, those "not quite ready" types of anatomic features are generally referred to as "transitional" forms. You may be familiar with the term, as most creationists deny their existence. The very term was conjured up by creationists as a strawman trying to diverge attention away from real science. They want people to believe scientists believe there were once upon a time half an eye, half a leg, etc. I don't know you. I can't say I've read any of your previous posts. Just a friendly correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
t was obvious from the beginning that the OP had certain qualities: .... (3) Will not listen to any evidence brought up. (4) At some point, will fall back to argument from incredulity. (5) Declares victory and run away.
Actually, the OP has yet to make a second post to this thread. The tactics on display here belong to others. My guess is that the original post was just proselytizing and that the OP does not intend to debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I just realized that. This is also a very well known creationist tactic that the OP is doing. The OP probably is a teenager who just discovered some creationist website thinking he's stumbled upon the answer to everything. Excitedly, he posts a bunch of this crap on online forums. When people start responding with a little more technical stuff, he just runs away... or sign up another name and start over.
That said, my initial reaction still stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4191 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
Can you show the evidence that natural selection can create an eye.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Portillo writes:
That's an interesting strawman, considering no one actually suggests natural selection can create an eye... except the OP's ignorant claim.
Can you show the evidence that natural selection can create an eye.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024