Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:28 AM
19 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,630 Year: 3,667/19,786 Month: 662/1,087 Week: 31/221 Day: 2/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 181 of 242 (638946)
10-27-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 5:49 AM


What he is saying is that there is such diversity that you (specifically you) cannot imagine eyes more diverse than what we find in nature.

If you can, please describe the type of eye (that you can imagine) that is more radically different from any real eye.

Hope that helps.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 5:49 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 182 of 242 (638948)
10-27-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Taq
10-21-2011 12:45 PM


Okay.
Only across GROUPS is there diversity.
Within 'groups" I say it would be unlikely that like eyes prevailed if evolution had been charging forward as it shaped each creature inside and out.

The groups.
I say there are only a few groups with diversity.
Yet even there the theme of eyesight is the same thing.
One can see the equation or logic behind sight in everthing.

Not any other options to see things.

These groups truly have different bodies or live in very different areas and it follows that their eyes are slightly adjusted for these needs.
Yet still only i=one idea or creator is evident.

Evolution has not had much imigination with eyes and since there is differences then no excuse.
Ran out of time?

Unless one invokes convergent evolution then eyes in all groups mean the eyes of each group stayed the same after the original model had been perfected.
Very unlikely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 10-21-2011 12:45 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2011 4:33 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 183 of 242 (638950)
10-27-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Gullwind1
10-21-2011 6:19 PM


Why put me down?
I understand all this.
If you say all eyes reached perfection very early and no more evolution took place while all the rest of biology inside and out was changing greatly then say so clearly!

You have to say that because eyes demonstrate a shocking likeness within biological life.
Unlikely if evolution was true.

Its very easy to say nirvana was reached 100's of millions of years ago.
Its easier to say a single creator with a single idea that can adjust itself.

one could also say our eyes are living fossils! We are looking at the eyes of our furry mammal ancestors jumping around the feet of dinosaurs. (actually they had our eyes too)
NAW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Gullwind1, posted 10-21-2011 6:19 PM Gullwind1 has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 184 of 242 (638951)
10-27-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by frako
10-21-2011 6:52 PM


If evolution was the creator eyesight concepts and eye types
then just as there is a little diversity between big groups of types of creatures there would be after all that time fantastic diversity in EYES.
Including remnant bits of former typres of eyes in each creature because it came from all sorts of former stages on earth.

The eyes of mammals alone should be almost unrecognizable compared to each other.

In fact posters I've been talking with here understand this and desperately try to say THERE IS massive diversity.

Other posters admit there is not by their questions or criticisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by frako, posted 10-21-2011 6:52 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by frako, posted 10-27-2011 7:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2011 7:33 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 10-27-2011 9:17 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 204 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-28-2011 4:33 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 185 of 242 (638952)
10-27-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 6:35 AM


then just as there is a little diversity between big groups of types of creatures there would be after all that time fantastic diversity in EYES.

There is but you expect to see square eyes that use sound waves to see that just does not work evolution cant make something that does not work or ever will.

All eyes are round because it works

All eyes have some thing that allows light to enter them because that is how they work

All eyes range in diameter from x cm to y cm because they cant get any smaller, and any larger is a waste of resource

....
...
..

there is only so much diversity an eye can have that utelises its best efficiency for the task.

We dont have the eyes of a Hawk because the need was never selected for that strongly we have the optimum eye for our environment, the positive efects of a hawks eyes are smaller in comparrison for the resources it would use that we spend on other parts, Better eyesight would need a larger portion of the brain devoted to it and so limiting other parts of the brain like the ones responsible for logic and reasoning thus making us actually far less effective at passing on our gens because we would be out competed.

Perhaps what you are really asking is why dont we see different sense organs.

Well we do

You have the eye
The sonar
Normal ear function
taste
tuch
infraread

and you have various ways in the way they are utilized like the snake smelling with its tung.

The eyes of mammals alone should be almost unrecognizable compared to each other.

So how do you really think they should look? Give me an example of the difference one would see.

P.s. i really should not post stuff when im stoned so if all this makes no sense just ignore it


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:35 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 186 of 242 (638953)
10-27-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 6:35 AM


The eyes of mammals alone should be almost unrecognizable compared to each other

No, they should all be recognizably mammalian eyes due to being evolved from the same common ancestor.

Please see if you can find a criticism of the theory of evolution rather than a criticism of some crazy shit that you've made up in your head.

If evolution was the creator eyesight concepts and eye types
then just as there is a little diversity between big groups of types of creatures there would be after all that time fantastic diversity in EYES.

Perhaps you could answer this simple question:

Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature?

If so, please describe them to us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:35 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 187 of 242 (638963)
10-27-2011 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 6:35 AM


Hi Robert,

I think Dr Adequate asks an important question in Message 186. If you believe there isn't much diversity in eye design in nature, then please describe for us what other kinds of eyes you are thinking of that would add to the diversity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:35 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 4:56 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 188 of 242 (638974)
10-27-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 5:48 AM


Your eye pictures make my point. They are the same eye.

You are kidding, right?

Human - one lens, one pupil
Dragonfly - hundreds of lenses lenses, no pupil
Mantis Shrimp - multiple cornea, crystaline cones

In what way are these the "same eye"?

I don't mean a creator made types of eyes.
I mean there is just one equation for sight.

Meaning "an organ which captures light"?
So, your argument for a creator is that there all "eyes" are "organs which capture light".
That's the DEFINITION of the word "eye".

Just like the definition of the word "nose" is an organ which takes in air and samples chemicals to detect "odor".

Just like the definition of the word "ear" is an organ which senses vibrations and translates them into "sounds".

HUMANS have decided that all these things are "eyes".

Would could have just as easily declared that all mammals have "eyes" and that all insects have "spectrae".

Your argument is circularly.

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.

And I say, you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no education as to what evolution is or how it occurs.

WHY would mammals, which are all extremely closely related, have vastly different organs? Particularly when those organs are extremely important to survival?

Evolution keeps what works and modifies it.

Goats have different pupils than humans do. That's modification. They don't have dragonfly eyes. If they did, THAT would be a problem for evolution.

Creatures in like situations would have like eyes.

Someone has already pointed out to you that that is NOT the case. Hummingbirds and dragonflies inhabit the same area, are the same size, and do similar things. Their eyes are radically different.

Whale sharks and Right Whales inhabit the same area, feed on the same things in the same way. Different eyes.

Naked Moles rats and termites have the same social structure, live the same way and feed on the same thing - radically different eyes.

Your lists miss this point.

Let's compare it to your list....

Oh wait, that's right. You don't have a list. You don't present any evidence.

Someone ban this guy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 5:48 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 189 of 242 (639104)
10-28-2011 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 6:23 AM


It took me a long time to try and work out your "logic". I think I finally got it. Not your "logic", but why you don't think eyes are diversified: they all use light to operate. They all use light to work. That's a very common theme amongst eyes. They use light.
Robert Byers writes:

One can see the equation or logic behind sight in everthing.

Are you implying that because all eyes use light and that no eyes use soundwaves or radar or fairy dust or gold ions to work; then all eyes must be the same, show no diversity and therefore an Intelligent Designer? Thus, because eyes use light, no diversity?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:23 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:01 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 190 of 242 (639105)
10-28-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
10-27-2011 9:17 AM


There is not diversity relevant to the diversity in all other organs or body shapes of nature.
Especially since eyes are seen as very complex things even famously used in historical creationism.

To imagine other kinds of eyes would require a imagination greater then mine.
I can't imagine how to start of forming concepts and actual eye types to be diverse from the ones I know.
Even if stoned I couldn't. Of coarse i don't use illegal medicines.

If light is the only objective for seeing then why shouldn't nature in its brilliance have come up with thousands of options to manipulate light.!

If you guys think there is great diversity and have so many examples then you FIRST.
Introduce a few more options not not used by nature.

No retinas or lens either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 10-27-2011 9:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2011 5:21 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 196 by caffeine, posted 10-28-2011 5:41 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 198 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 6:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2011 6:57 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 191 of 242 (639106)
10-28-2011 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Pressie
10-28-2011 4:33 AM


A single equation for sight.
This not yet discovered.
The different types of eyes hint at this equation.
In the meanwhile they do make clear there are few options for types of eyes.
Unlikely if evolution was true and very unlikely if your claiming thee is important diversity already.

Very little diversity relative to seeing beings.
The little makes the case against eyes being created and changed as needed by evolution.
A good point folks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2011 4:33 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Larni, posted 10-28-2011 5:12 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 192 of 242 (639107)
10-28-2011 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 5:01 AM


Why do yo think there would be more diversity of eyes than we see?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:01 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:22 AM Larni has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 193 of 242 (639109)
10-28-2011 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 4:56 AM


Robert Byers writes:

Of coarse i don't use illegal medicines.

I don't believe you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 194 of 242 (639110)
10-28-2011 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Larni
10-28-2011 5:12 AM


Evolution is based on ideas of turning bugs into buffalos. Of having created all the biology here from very primitive origins and incredible stages in between.
Fantastic complexity and diversity.
Then we have eyes not much different then the dinosaurs or anything with feet today.

Evolution doesn't think there are many options for sight.
Evolution did not think up many options or important differences between the creatures of the world.
Great chunks of life have got the same kind of eyes.
All have the same principals behind eyes.

While evolution has fantastic ideas on making biology it stuck with a common idea for eyes.

Unlikely.
More likely there is a creator with a blueprint, just like in physics, and all eyes are from there.
We have like eyes if we have like circumstances.
Slightly different in other situations.

if evolution was and had been at work since it first created the eye then a prediction should be that diversity defines the eyes.
It doesn't.
In fact evolutionists have to argue we pretty much have living fossil eyes.
We have our rodent=about=the-feet of dinos eyes.
Or dino eyes even.
NAW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Larni, posted 10-28-2011 5:12 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2011 5:33 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Larni, posted 10-28-2011 5:49 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 10-28-2011 7:08 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 195 of 242 (639111)
10-28-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 5:22 AM


Robert Byers writes:

if evolution was and had been at work since it first created the eye then a prediction should be that diversity defines the eyes.
It doesn't.
In fact evolutionists have to argue we pretty much have living fossil eyes.
We have our rodent=about=the-feet of dinos eyes.
Or dino eyes even.
NAW.

Huh?
Robert Byers writes:

Of coarse i don't use illegal medicines.


I don't believe you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:22 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019