|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can sense organs like the eye really evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
yust a question um what kind of eye would suit your idea what evolution would produce ???
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4191 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed. My question is, what is the process that created the eye? Have we seen this process observed in the present? Does the evidence of natural selection (Darwins finches, peppered moths, fruitflys) have anything to do with the process? I dont believe the eye can evolve just as much as I dont think a camera can create itself without intelligence. However the eye is vastly superior to a camera. An eye has to repair itself and is connected to an information processing system. Sources:Darwins Blackbox By Design And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Like speech, I dont think the eye is evolutionary. One does not teach a child to speak - they just click and speech is ignited. Likewise, one does not teach someone to see. These are hard wired and come with the species, as with lungs, limbs and nostrils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed. I guess you're looking at a different fossil record from the one paleontologists are looking at, in which they see the primitive eyes of primitive chordates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Portillo writes: Please, Portillo, stop telling us things that are certainly not true. It's easy to check whether you tell the truth or not, you know. The fossil record indicates that simple unicellular organisms appeared first, while, billions of years later, the organisms we call animals devoloped. We've even got lots of fossils with intermediate characteristics.
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly.....Portillo writes: Unicellular organisms are fully formed organisms. Every organism was fully formed. Even when they were primitive, unicellular and have no eyes at all. ... and fully formed. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake and added a sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Iam Joseph writes: Luckily, what you think doesn't count. You can think that the moon is made from cheeese. It doesn't change reality. You are still wrong. What counts is empirical evidence.
Like speech, I dont think the eye is evolutionary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
empirical evidence.
Please call me when you have some. All you have to do is get some evidence of a human w/o speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
See - emperical debate is chaotic, but always leaning away from Evolution for speech; the latter also based on conjurings not emperical evidences:
quote: Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I don't know who Pinker and Bloom are, but I suspect that your quote-mine is telling untruths here:
From IamJoseph writes: Just from this sentence I can see that your source is twisting and turning the truth to such an extent that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the truth. Every single piece of work put forward Gould, for example, actually supported evolutionary theory; he didn't contradict evolutionary theory at all. Your source certainly is not telling the truth.
The most important argument within contemporary linguistics and evolutionary theory was sparked by Pinker and Bloom's (1990) seminal analysis outlining comments made by Noam Chomsky and Stephen Jay Gould that contradicted the basis of modern evolutionary theory;..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Lots of evidence. It has been presented numerous times. The fact that you ignore all that evidence won't get the evidence to poof into non-existence.
Do you have any empirical evidence that anything has ever been poofed into existence? You haven't presented anything so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Any mistakes you wish to make about speech are off-topic; this thread is about vision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
It's called muteness
empirical evidence. Please call me when you have some. All you have to do is get some evidence of a human w/o speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just from this sentence I can see that your source is twisting and turning the truth to such an extent that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the truth. Every single piece of work put forward Gould, for example, actually supported evolutionary theory; he didn't contradict evolutionary theory at all. Your source certainly is not telling the truth. Quite so. The author of the piece actually believes that exaption contradicts "the basis of modern evolutionary theory". How? Well, he takes natural selection to be the basis of the theory, which is not too bad, and then he thinks that exaptions contradict it ... by ... uh ... not being it? By being produced by it, but not qua exaption? It's a muddled piece of writing produced by a linguist and not a biologist. Anyway, back to the eye, if anyone wants to discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, I see that the creationists are trying to change the subject again. By outright dishonesty. That's why I am going to place the abstract of the article referred to by IamJoseph here. IamJoseph, your sources were not telling the truth at all. From the abstract presented in their own words, Pinker and Bloom actually found that the specialization of grammar evolved by "neo-Darwinian processes". Even IamJoseph's own sources contracdict what IamJoseph wrote. From Pinker and Bloom . I will just place the last sentence here.
Pinker and Bloom ,1990 writes: Note that it is not evolution of speech, but specialization of grammar. IamJoseph, your sources lied to you. Nothing to do with the evolution of speech. Now back to eyes. ...... Reviewing other arguments and data, we conclude that there is every reason to believe that a specialization for grammar evolved by a conventional neo-Darwinian process Edited by Pressie, : Confused Portillo and IamJoseph. Fixed it. Edited by Pressie, : Added wrong URL. Changed it. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi IamJoseph,
You're just going from thread to thread posting nonsense. Please stop participating in this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024