Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 19 of 242 (636466)
10-06-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-06-2011 9:02 AM


Re: no brain needed.
Plants sense light and respond, yet they have no brain.
Many bacteria sense light and respond, yet they have no brain.
Another example is the single celled Euglena which has an eyespot. It uses this organelle to move itself into light in order to photosynthesize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-06-2011 9:02 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 33 of 242 (636549)
10-07-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Robert Byers
10-06-2011 10:23 PM


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:
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
--Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Robert Byers, posted 10-06-2011 10:23 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 73 of 242 (636935)
10-12-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Robert Byers
10-11-2011 12:48 AM


The 'intermediate' eyes are in fact totally suitable mechanisms for seeing for these types of creatures Darwin talks about.
Just as it should be if evolution is true.
Points that you have yet to deal with:
1. We have perfect examples of intermediate eyes in modern species. This was known in Darwin's time.
2. The design of eyes stays within evolutionary lineages. Cephalopods have one type of eye, vertebrates another.
These are the 2 main pieces of evidence which demonstrate the evolution of the eye. You need to deal with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Robert Byers, posted 10-11-2011 12:48 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2011 12:06 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 98 of 242 (637697)
10-17-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Big_Al35
10-17-2011 2:10 PM


Some might agree with you that we do not want people with bad eyesight to pass on their genes. Eugenicists I think would be the term.
The eugencisists would be wrong. If evolution has taught us anything it is that we should try and preserve as much variation within a species as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Big_Al35, posted 10-17-2011 2:10 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 125 of 242 (638036)
10-19-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Robert Byers
10-19-2011 3:57 AM


Again you strive to say that there is great eye diversity.
We have supported that argument with facts. There is great diversity in eyes across the animal kingdom.
Case in point is mammals (so called) .
We are saying that there is a great diversity across the animal kingdom. Pointing to similarities within a small group of animals in no way refutes our point.
You must say the eye is so completly different in all or most mammals if you want to say evolution has been at work on the eye.
Why must we say this? All mammals share a common ancestor. Therefore, all mammals share the same eye that was found in that ancestor.
now actually evolution claimed we all had the same eye from the same furry mammal crawling around the dinosaurs feet back in the day.
yet still in all that time evolution must of changed mammals eyes greatly along with everything else.
Why would evolution need to modify the mammalian eye to such a degree?
In fact all eyes simply work with light in very like ways relative to extreme living styles.
And yet eyes are designed differently across different animal clades. This falsifies a common designer, does it not?
a single design or equation would mean all eyes have like principals and few options of results.
There is no single design or equation. There are multiple eyes, each with their own solution for gathering light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Robert Byers, posted 10-19-2011 3:57 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 134 of 242 (638308)
10-21-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Robert Byers
10-21-2011 2:57 AM


you are admitting its just minor variations that are separate mammal eyes.
You are ignoring the major variations across different animal groups.
This MORE expected from a common design then fantastic nutation/time evolution affecting eyes.
Why? Please explain. Why shouldn't a fish eye more closely resemble a squid eye than it does a human eye? Please explain.
Eyes are not diverse and where there is diversity in the other creatures I say it shows a greater law of what sight is .
So are eyes diverse or not? Please pick one and stick with it.
Sight is very limited in options to how it works. In fact only one option.
Then why do we see so many different kind of eyes across multiple animal groups? Why doesn't this diversity falsify common design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Robert Byers, posted 10-21-2011 2:57 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:23 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 155 of 242 (638642)
10-24-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:03 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process.
Darwin found this evidence 150 years ago:
[quote]In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection.
Origin of Species
But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed.
As they should if evolution is true.
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?
We would need to look at how each gradation of eye would benefit the organism. This is actually quite easy to do with eyes. We can demonstrate a distinct advantage for each step along the way with each step being fully formed as you mentioned.
1. Nerve covered with pigment: This offers the advantage of being able to sense light. This would be very helpful for animals that can take shelter in shady areas to avoid predators, or find food if their food source is found in poorly lit or well lit areas.
2. Depressed pit with pigmented nerve cells: A good example of this type of eye is the planaria. The depressed pit allows the organism to detect which direction the light is coming from which is an obvious advantage.
3. Pinhole type eye: By bringing the edges of the depressed pit close to each other you can create a pinhole type camera eye. This allows for a focused image. Again, a very obvious advantage.
4. Protected pinhole type eye: By covering the opening of the pinhole you can protect the retina and prevent evaporation of mucosal surfaces on the interior of the eye.
5. Camera type eye: By bending and contorting the clear covering on the pinhole type eye you can control the focal plane. This allows you to do away with the restrictions of a pinhole type eye, namely the size of the aperature. This allows for much more light to hit the retina making a clearer image and also allowing for better vision in low light conditions.
Each increase in complexity is an increase in positive features. Each eye is still fully formed just as you claim we see in the fossil record.
I dont believe . . .
We are discussing science which involves evidence, not beliefs.
However the eye is vastly superior to a camera.
The Hubble Telescope says otherwise.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 156 of 242 (638644)
10-24-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 9:23 AM


Your the one speaking nonsense, unlike an admin or considering posts with zero acumen.
You are posting ideas about speech in a thread about eye evolution. It is nonsense.
my position was this matter is highly "disputed" in the science world.
It isn't. More than 99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution, including the evolution of the eye.
quote:
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
I can post 50 more of the same evidential links from the most prominent evelutionists concerning particularly the eye organ, the biggest evolutionists there are.
Then why don't you discuss eye evolution instead of speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 9:23 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


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.
Digital camera - Wikipedia
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 replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 205 of 242 (639195)
10-28-2011 5:06 PM
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.
Perhaps you can define "suddenly and fully formed"?
Are you saying that fossils are supposed to slowly fade in and out of existence as we look at them? Are we only supposed to find the back half of a walrus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 10-27-2011 12:30 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 216 of 242 (639407)
10-31-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


The tree of life that is common to textbooks is actually drawn by the evolutionist.
Actually, it was first drawn by Linnaeus, 100 years before "Origin of Species" was published. The tree is formed by shared characteristics, not evolutionists.
The fact remains that eye designs fall into a nested hierarchy, just as evolution predicts. How does creationism explain this? Why do all animals with a backbone need an inverted retina according to creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Portillo, posted 10-30-2011 2:06 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by caffeine, posted 10-31-2011 12:04 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 218 of 242 (639516)
11-01-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by caffeine
10-31-2011 12:04 PM


Linnaeus recognised hierarchies of characteristics, but he didn't draw any 'tree of life'.
I would argue that they are the same thing. Nodes in the tree of life are the shared characteristics that were discovered by Linnaeus. All evolutionists did was connect the dots.
quote:
So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class. The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained.--Chapter 14, Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by caffeine, posted 10-31-2011 12:04 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024