Neural networks like we find in jellyfish, light sensors and the neural net allow the jellyfish to sense daylight and rise to the surface to feed and then during the dark night to sink away from predators.
So we have a protein that reacts to light.
We have single cell organisms that sense light and alter behavior.
We have primitive multicellular organisms with neural nets that sense light and alter behavior.
Thus the foundation for making eyes and their neural connections is well laid out. Each stage builds on what went before -- the jellyfish adapts the sensory asparagus of single cell organisms to be specialized cells for sensing light and it adds a neural net that triggers muscles to control the behavior based on sensory stimulus.
So the next stages are:
(1) formation of a retinal patch in lieu of single sensor cells, and
(2) formation of brain stem for signals to be switched on and off to control behavior.
Just wondering, are ANY of these creatures considered to be in the evolutionary line to human beings? In fact are the "primitive multicellular organisms" in the evolutionary line to jellyfish? Are those single-celled organisms in the line to the primitive multicellular organisms? SInce you don't say, I would guess they are not, that their visual capacities developed entirely separately, and in fact even uniquely in just a few organisms out of what, thousands or more? within their own genetic families.
And yet they form a "foundation" for the whole evolutionary apparatus (as opposed to "asparagus") which is assumed to have followed the purely imagined track from the one to the other all the way to the human eye, without one shred of actual evidence.
Thus the foundation for making eyes and their neural connections is well laid out. Each stage builds on what went before -- the jellyfish adapts the sensory asparagus of single cell organisms to be specialized cells for sensing light and it adds a neural net that triggers muscles to control the behavior based on sensory stimulus.
It's astonishing how ready you guys are to turn a collection of completely different visual capacities into a totally unevidenced purely imagined sequence from primitive to complex. If they are merely completely independent individual designs that you are imagining into stages of development you'll never know it. The whole ToE edifice is built on such purely imaginary stuff, yet you call it fact, you call it science.
Same thing that's done on that thread about reptile to mammal ear evolution. The genetic connection is assumed and the evolutionary pathway completely imagined: well in order to get to such and such we have to imagine that this structure changed into that one, and so on and so forth. You get it all imagined as if it really did occur and declare it fact. That's a fallacy called reification, and the entire ToE is built out of such stuff.
Meanwhile there is every reason to believe the genome of any species can only vary according to the possibilities inherent within that genome and that evolution from one species to another is quite simply genetically impossible, a purely imaginary notion.
Cheers.
ABE: Yes this was to answer Lamden's claim that a brain would be necessary for any of these visual capacities to exist, and that's been proved wrong, but of course in the process of proving that you state the usual evolutionist silliness that assumes these completely different and genetically unrelated forms are some kind of proof that they COULDA evolved one stage from another.
And yes I just wanted to say this in the middle of this ridiculous evolutionist attack on Lamden although it isn't his argument.
And of course I could go on to include my other most favorite argument about how you can't get from one species to another genetically (what you are calling stages of eye development in this case, without the slightest warrant), because the processes that bring about phenotypic change, otherwise known as evolution, eventually use up all the genetic possibilities in the genome.
I don't really have any reason to pursue these arguments here beyond this statement.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.