The book was called "Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism" under the chapter "Transitional forms" versus Transitional features.
Reptiles are very alike and so on. The insects are only different in some ways.
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. Unless you want to invoke massive convergent evolution. They don't.
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.
If there was a single blueprint then the few types still would indicate a greater equation(not realized yet) of what sight is actually doing. Just have lenses , despite differences, is case in point. In fact diversity in kinds of eyes should be the rule. yet most creatures have eyes like me and insects have like eyes and so on. Very controlled options for sight.
So you AGREE that Silly Design Theory is the best explanation for the silly diversity of eyes, when a very small number of eye types should suffice? Yes No (explain).
So you AGREE that Silly Design Theory is the best explanation for the silly diversity of eyes, when a very small number of eye types should suffice? Yes No (explain).
No offense, RAZD, but I hate those check boxes. They're redundant and unnecessary, and ugly and annoying.
The 'intermediate' eyes are in fact totally suitable mechanisms for seeing for these types of creatures Darwin talks about.
This seems indicative of a total misconception about what evolution is.
According to the Theory of Evolution, animals whose characteristics are not suitable for use in their environment will not be successful. By 'successful,' we mean "survive and reproduce."
So, according to the Theory of Evolution, all the 'intermediate' eyes would have to be suitable, otherwise the organism's success is not facilitated by them.
What that means is that, not only do populations of organisms evolve gradually, in an irregular series of steps, as it were; but, every 'intermediate' step in the series also has to be viable, functional and, yes, even successful.
-----
Robert Byers writes:
Still my point was that the fossil record, if possible to record eyes, should be swarming in intermediates and vestigial eyes.
I highlighted the operative phrase for you. I don't personally know of any fossils of vertebrates in which the eyes are preserved. Maybe some of the other users here know of some.
Molluscs don't actually fossilize much at all (except for their shells), and arthropods seem to have evolved the basic layout of their eyes almost half a billion years ago, at a time when the fossil record is, in general, very poor.
So, from what I can gather, I don't see how we could realistically expect anything from the fossil record in regards to the evolution of eyes.
So, from what I can gather, I don't see how we could realistically expect anything from the fossil record in regards to the evolution of eyes.
Trilobite eyes, or at least their lenses, excepted: they are mineralized from the get-go, being made of calcite. Vertebrate eyes are noticeably squishier.
Trilobite eyes, or at least their lenses, excepted: they are mineralized from the get-go, being made of calcite.
Of course. Arthropod eyes are made of the same stuff as the rest of the exoskeleton, so they tend to fossilize just as well as any other part of the bug does. There are fossils of dragonfly eyes, mantis eyes, spider eyes, etc.
But, the available fossil record doesn't really show the origin of the compound eye structure, or, to my knowledge, any predecessors or intermediate forms*. This is probably because the structure evolved through the various intermediate phases in soft-bodied ancestors that did not fossilize well.
*The compound eye is, however, thought to be derived from a proliferation of the ocelli, or simple eyes, which are present in both modern arthropods and their closest relatives, the onychophorans. Still, the ocellus first appears in the fossil record as a complete unit, and there are still no really good theories on how these evolved from pigment patches or eyespots, etc.
No. I think. off thread here. I simply point out that the lack of diversity in eye types is unlikely if evolution was true. Now I mean in important ways. Not lens pointing this way or that.
Then I add all eyes , deeply, are showing a single concept to sight. As they would from a common blueprint that then accomadates inself for different needs.
i read their are single or compound eyes largely and a few other types for small creatures. This indicates to be limited options have developed for sight. Unlikely if evolution was true. Very likely is a single thinking mind was behind sight.
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.
I simply point out that the lack of diversity in eye types is unlikely if evolution was true.
What do you mean "lack of diversity"? There has been an astonishing degree of diversity in eye form, functionality and features both in existing species as well as in the fossil record.
Dragonflies have extremely different eyes than squids which have different eyes than the box jellyfish which have different eyes than flatworms which have different eyes than goats which have different eyes than humans.
And that's to say nothing about eye capacity - An eagle's eye has very different capacity than a human eye. A cat can see in the dark.
Then of course there's the issue of number of eyes. Spiders have 8. Tuatara have 3. Humans 2. Box jellyfish have 24.
Then I add all eyes , deeply, are showing a single concept to sight.
"concept of sight"?
Eyes detect light. That's what an eye does. That's not "a concept of sight" it's a definition of "eye".
If you want an "eye" that detects chemicals instead of light, let me direct you to the "eye" which is sticking out of the middle of your face right above your mustache.
If you want an "eye" that detects tastes instead of light, let me direct you to the "eye" which is inside your mouth.
If you want an "eye" that detects sounds instead of light, let me direct you to your headphone holders on either side of your head.
By the way, bats "SEE" using their ears. They can literally fly through the forest using nothing but sound.
So, even in my snarky response to you I still manage to come up with an answer that makes your question seem profoundly foolish.
*The compound eye is, however, thought to be derived from a proliferation of the ocelli, or simple eyes, which are present in both modern arthropods and their closest relatives, the onychophorans. Still, the ocellus first appears in the fossil record as a complete unit, and there are still no really good theories on how these evolved from pigment patches or eyespots, etc.
Don't know if this helps you at all, but recently heard a scientific study of compound eyes that reveal that they don't process information as separate eyes.
In other words, the overdone "fly point of view" where we see hundreds of tiny images all doing the same thing is wrong.
Instead, fly eyes process information like pixels. With each eye providing only a tiny piece of the picture.
Unfortunately, there's no way to know if that is an adaptation of the brain to better process the input as the number of eyes increased or if that was the original function of the original eye, so that more and more eyes made for better and better resolution.
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.
Rather there is simply limited options for eye types and creatures have like eyes where they are more alike.
your intermediate eyes are not intermediate between anything. it just shows their is a common blueprint for sight and creatures get the part of that blueprint for sight that they need.
its a flaw in thinking to see different types of sight as indicating progression etc. Rather they indicate need dictates results within a common blueprint.
™ Version 4.2
