Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-30-2014 10:25 AM
89 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 738,980 Year: 24,821/28,606 Month: 2,122/1,786 Week: 337/647 Day: 21/51 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2335
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 166 of 242 (638771)
10-25-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by frako
10-25-2011 3:27 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
Arguing about a camera being superior to the eye is silly.imo
Apples and oranges. There are many many man made devices that perform tasks and operations in greater number and more efficient.
However I'll play along, can a camera do all the things a eye can do with no one there to build it or power it, program it and operate it?
The eye can, you see it is linked to this pretty cool automated intergrated system called the human body.Oh there are also some models custom made for raptors and large preditory cats.

Edited by 1.61803, : raptors and cats


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by frako, posted 10-25-2011 3:27 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 5:51 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 167 of 242 (638778)
10-25-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by 1.61803
10-25-2011 5:24 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
~2 writes:

However I'll play along, can a camera do all the things a eye can do with no one there to build it or power it, program it and operate it?

Well, let's find out shall we?
Put a cow's eye on your dining-room table and then describe what it can do.
Then we can see what an eye can do with no-one there to power it, program it or operate it.

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 166 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2011 5:24 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2011 5:57 PM Panda has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2335
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 168 of 242 (638780)
10-25-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Panda
10-25-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
Hi Panda, Separating the eye from the body as you know renders it inoperable. It is built to operate as a contiguous unit and therefore your argument is empty imo. I can just as easily turn your own statement around and say take a SLR lense from its body and see what it can do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 5:51 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 6:15 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 169 of 242 (638782)
10-25-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by 1.61803
10-25-2011 5:57 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
~2 writes:

Hi Panda, Separating the eye from the body as you know renders it inoperable. It is built to operate as a contiguous unit and therefore your argument is empty imo.

So, your argument is that a human is better than a camera?
Well, that is nice goal-post moving.

But going back to the comparison we were making: a camera is better than an eye.
To answer your 'adjusted' comparison: a camera used by a human is better than an eye used by a human.

You have decided that an eye connected to a living human brain is analogous to a camera, but that is not correct.
It is a False Analogy.

~2 writes:

I can just as easily turn your own statement around and say take a SLR lense from its body and see what it can do.

An eye is not equivalent to the lens in a camera.
An eye is equivalent to the whole camera.

An eye connected to a human is not equivalent to a camera.
An eye connected to a human is equivalent to a camera connected to a human.

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 168 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2011 5:57 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2011 8:06 PM Panda has responded

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 964 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 170 of 242 (638784)
10-25-2011 7:02 PM


Camera Analogies
Reading through this, it seems that the camera analogy is a rabbit hole that just distracts from the real question about whether or not eyes have evolved.

It also seems to fit into a creationist argument. They can say "look, it took intelligence to build a camera" and then further the claim by saying that a camera isn't as good as a natural eye. In the context of their argument, that means that the eye must also be designed.

All this ignores what has been brought up multiple times in this thread already, namely that there is significant diversity in visual systems in the animal kingdom, that there are many examples of eyes and light sensing systems ranging from the simple to the complex (supporting evolution of those systems) and that, frankly, eyes just don't show evidence of deliberate design, but rather cobbled together parts refined in their function over geologic time due to selective pressures.

A few questions I have... If the eye (or really the entire system) is designed:

Why is the human eye "wired" to create a blind spot where the optic nerve connects when this is not necessary?

Why do we have a "night blind spot" due to the lack of rods around the fovea? For that matter, why (from a design perspective) the odd mechanism of sharp, color central vision contrasted with poor scotopic vision?

Why is there not better production and quality control in the formative stages, so that such a significant portion of the population doesn't suffer from poor vision or other problems with their eyes?

Why does this designed system suffer from a processor prone to errors which can result in visual hallucinations or other interpretive "malfunctions"?

I'm sure there is more, but these are what springs to mind. Any legitimate errors within the above questions are due to my own marginal understanding of the subject.

It seems that members of this board have repeatedly presented evidence for natural evolution of the eyes, but no creationist has as of yet presented anything to prove that these natural marvels are in fact designed.

To me, if the eyes are in fact designed, they must not have been put together by a very competent engineer.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 10-25-2011 7:34 PM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 242 (638786)
10-25-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Wollysaurus
10-25-2011 7:02 PM


Re: Camera Analogies
Let's not toss cameras to the side so quickly. They offer another interesting analogy.

The first digital CCD camera was built by Eastman Kodak in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera

If this were evolution then ONLY Eastman Kodak cameras would have CCD's. This isn't the case. Human designers are free to mix and match design units. Therefore, with common design we should not expect to see a nested hierarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Wollysaurus, posted 10-25-2011 7:02 PM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2335
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 172 of 242 (638791)
10-25-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Panda
10-25-2011 6:15 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
Panda writes:

your argument is that a human is better than a camera?
Well, that is nice goal-post moving.

Well yeah, a human is a intergral part of the eye. No goal post moving required.
Just as a power supply, lense and all other integral componants of a camera are essential to it's operation.

Panda writes:

To answer your 'adjusted' comparison: a camera
used by a human is better than an eye used by a
human

yes it is.

Panda writes:

An eye is not equivalent to the lens in a
camera.
An eye is equivalent to the whole camera.

an eye is equalvalent to a camera? Nope this is the false analogy
because from the start your equating a fully funtioning camera to a eye that is incomplete. Lacking it's needed vasculature, nerves, sensory inputs, etc..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 6:15 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 8:52 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 173 of 242 (638795)
10-25-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by 1.61803
10-25-2011 8:06 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
~2 writes:

an eye is equalvalent to a camera? Nope this is the false analogy because from the start your equating a fully funtioning camera to a eye that is incomplete. Lacking it's needed vasculature, nerves, sensory inputs, etc..

False.
I equate a fully functioning camera to a fully functioning eye.
I have not excluded its vasculature, nerves or sensory inputs, as you will see if you read my previous posts.

What you are trying to do is argue that an eye (including the human that uses it) is better than a camera (excluding the human that uses it).
Why include the human element for the eye but exclude the human element for the camera?
By ignoring aspects which the camera clearly shares with the eye, you are creating a invalid comparison.

A fully functioning camera (used by a human) is equivalent to a fully functioning eye (used by a human).
A fully functioning camera (used by a human) is better than a fully functioning eye (used by a human).


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 172 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2011 8:06 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by 1.61803, posted 10-26-2011 11:09 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2335
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 174 of 242 (638822)
10-26-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Panda
10-25-2011 8:52 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
Panda writes:

I equate a fully functioning camera to a fully functioning eye.

Hence you have reached the conclusions you have.

A fully functioning eye is dependent on a fully functioning optic nerve, brain function, cardiovascular system and metabolic system aka: life support system and housing and sensory input output unit for the eye. Aka: the human, cat or bird or what ever.

The analogy is inadequate. The camera can do many many things better than the eye. But it can not make itself, repair itself, program itself, it is a tool and nothing more.

Yes a human operating a camera is superior in vision to a human without a camera.

Thats why we made them.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/eyes-vs-cameras
http://www.desy.de/...ects/Physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/...cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
http://photos4u2c.wordpress.com/...-your-camera-is-a-machine

Edited by 1.61803, : add link.

Edited by 1.61803, : few more links


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Panda, posted 10-25-2011 8:52 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 175 of 242 (638865)
10-26-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by frako
10-25-2011 3:27 PM


Re: Cameras and Eyes
Eyes do not have flash so they cant make a picture in pich darkness

True but every time I blink I don't see every human being having the exact same colour eyes ie red.

Eyes cant zoom.

Many cameras only come with digital zoom which is practically worthless. And if you have a camera like mine which has zoom but no optical image stabilisation be prepared for snaps which you daren't share with either friends or family.

The 50 year old camera i have still works like the day it was bought.

Funny but my five year old camera is already losing pixels in every frame. Five years is not a long time.

Eyes dont have factory testing some are just broken the day you get them (birth) where every camera has a warranty.

Yeah but when you exercise your warranty you have to hand over your camera to a third party. He may return the item back to you in worse shape than when you gave it to him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by frako, posted 10-25-2011 3:27 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 176 of 242 (638922)
10-27-2011 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Pressie
10-24-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
quote:
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.

Please, Pressie, stop saying that animals dont appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. The cambrian explosion proves that animals appear suddenly and fully formed. The cambrian explosion has major animal phyla appearing suddenly and fully formed. No gradualism.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 5:42 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2011 2:26 AM Portillo has responded
 Message 178 by Pressie, posted 10-27-2011 2:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 10-28-2011 5:06 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12875
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 177 of 242 (638926)
10-27-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
10-27-2011 12:30 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
Please, Pressie, stop saying that animals dont appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. The cambrian explosion proves that animals appear suddenly and fully formed.

No it doesn't, this is just something creationists have made up. And if it did, this would hardly support the generalization that "the fossil record" shows this given that the fossil record is not limited to the Cambrian Period .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 10-27-2011 12:30 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Portillo, posted 10-30-2011 12:32 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 835
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 178 of 242 (638927)
10-27-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
10-27-2011 12:30 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
Portillo, why do you keep on trying to mislead us. Its easy to check when you tell porkies, you know.

Timeline of Evolution In the oldest rocks, no signs of life (>~ 4billion years old). In rocks a bit younger (3.8-4 billion years old),we find evidence for organic molecules. In rocks a bit younger (~3.8 billion years old, we only find prokaryotes). In rocks younger than that (around 3 billion years old), we also find fossils of eukaryotes. In rocks younger than that (~1.5 billion years old), we also find fossils of multicellular organisms; in rocks younger than that (around 1 billion years old) we find also land plants and animals. In rocks younger than that, we find dinosaurs. In rocks younger than that, we also find mammals. In rocks younger than that, we also find flowers. In rocks younger than that (~ 200 000 years old), we also find fossils of modern animals (such as humans and elephants).

Which animals appeared suddenly?

.and fully formed.
Exactly what the TOE predicts. All animals will be fully formed to be able to reproduce. What do you expect to find for a not-fully formed animal? A bird with only one wing and no legs?
The cambrian explosion..
A period starting around 545 million years ago and lasting 5 to 10 million years.
.. proves that animals appear suddenly
You call ten million years suddenly?
.and fully formed.
Just as the ToE predicts.
The cambrian explosion has major animal phyla appearing suddenly and fully formed.
Of 30 or so phyla, 5-9 phyla already existed before the Cambrian explosion, e.g., things like worms, sponges and jellyfish. And at least 8 phyla only appear after the Cambrian. 5 to 10 million years is not suddenly.

Immediately after the Cambrian Explosion, we still have almost nothing even remotely resembling anything in a zoo: no primates, no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no jawed fish, no birds, no insects, no land life, no bunnies, no dogs and no humans.

No gradualism.
Modern organisms developing over 4 billion years seems pretty gradual to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 10-27-2011 12:30 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 841 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 179 of 242 (638943)
10-27-2011 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Nuggin
10-21-2011 3:49 AM


Your eye pictures make my point. They are the same eye. Trivial differences about seeing in the dark.

I don't mean a creator made types of eyes.
I mean there is just one equation for sight.
The creatore organizes biology originally to "pick" the right eye for each critter as needed. i also think this was a mechanism that kept or keeps working.

So the evidence for a creator is the sameness of eyes with just a few important differences between like different creatures.
Let 'mammals' all have the same eyes.
Then I say if evolution was the creator of eyes it would be a fantastic segregation of types so one could hardly recognize oringinal origins.

In fact if it was this way evolutionists would say, rightly, how its unlikely a creator would have a hand in so much diversity.
More likely a randoness of options is at work they would say.

Creatures in like situations would have like eyes.
its the situation or niche that determines what eyes one needs.
not eyes are an indicator of heritage.

The types of eyes of creatures are very aklike in their great mechanics.
Your lists miss this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2011 3:49 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2011 10:14 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 841 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 180 of 242 (638944)
10-27-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2011 9:51 AM


Why persist in this question? I answered it as far as able.
I don't understand it any more.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2011 9:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Larni, posted 10-27-2011 5:55 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014