|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can sense organs like the eye really evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024