Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 196 of 242 (639112)
10-28-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 4:56 AM


There is not diversity relevant to the diversity in all other organs or body shapes of nature.
Where is this much greater diversity in other organs? When I turn to the section on hearts in my vertebrate anatomy book, I can look up mammal hearts and read about their basic structure. And they all have the same basic structure - they've all got the same fully divided atria and ventricles, with the same basic pattern of veins and arteries coming in and out; whether they be whales or mice or monkeys or kangaroos - because they're all mammals. Sure, there are some differences between them, just as different mammals have eyes with or without colour vision; with varying densities of rods; with bigger or smaller apertures; with different orientations etc. depending on their lifestyles. But the same basic design since they all share a recent common ancestor.
Why would you expect different for eyes than for hearts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 197 of 242 (639113)
10-28-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 5:22 AM


Evolution is based on ideas of turning bugs into buffalos.
Let me put you straight there, friend. Arthropods are not predicted to become mammals. Who ever told you that is lieing to you.
Once something works (e.g. a type of eye) it get conserved because it works. But there is a balance. Once something works it does not really need to change much untill there is a selective pressure.
So, once the mamalian eye evolved to a point that allowed the creature to survive to reproduce it did not need to diversify radically from that point. Variations will show up but not what you seem to be expecting.
ToE does not state that it should, you are saying it should (based on your flawed understanding of ToE).
Unlikely.
This is where you go wrong. Evoultionary changes occure when there is a selective pressure. Why do you think the shape of both fish and dolphins is so similar, that shape works.
Once evoultion hits on something that works it only changes if it is forced to by a selection pressure.
Crocodillians have a very successful shape that has not changed in millions of years. Cats on the other hand can be thought of as rappidly evolving.
Once an organism finds a 'sweet spot' or niche that does not change, it does not evolve very rappidly untill that niche changes.
Seeing light is a very effective means of improving fitness to the environment. Once the organisms version of a light detecting organ does it's job well enough it won't go much further: unless it is compelled to be environmental change.
if evolution was and had been at work since it first created the eye then a prediction should be that diversity defines the eyes.
I'm waiting for more evidence than you saying 'unlikely'.
We have our rodent=about=the-feet of dinos eyes.
Or dino eyes even.
NAW.
Again this is just you saying 'I don't believe it' with no rationale for your conclusion.
You have this idea of what ToE is (and the good people on this site have corrected you dozens of times, one imagines) and then you say that your idea of evolution won't work.
This is a 'strawman argument'.
If I was to say you god sends people to hell because he gets a kick out of it and therefor your good is evil, what would you say?
That's what you are doing to ToE: mischaracterising it (either on purpose or unwitingly) and drawing conclusions based on that mischaracterisation.
Can you see where I'm comming from?

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 194 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:22 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 198 of 242 (639115)
10-28-2011 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 4:56 AM


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.
Because you believe we should see triangle shaped eyes whitout an opening for light, able to see sound waves
they would not work and not be selected for, or the flaws would be selected against and we would get something similar to the eyes we have TOE.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2011 10:05 AM frako has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 199 of 242 (639120)
10-28-2011 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 4:56 AM


To imagine other kinds of eyes would require a imagination greater then mine.
So, the actual diversity is greater than anything you can imagine ... but you still like to imagine that evolution should have produced more diversity, even though you can't actually imagine this diversity itself.
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.!
Suggest some of these thousands of ways. Oh, right, you can't. Because while you can imagine that thousands exist, you can't imagine what even one of them might be like.
This is pathetic.
However, at least we have got some truth out of you. The diversity of eyes in nature is greater than anything you could possibly imagine.
If you guys think there is great diversity and have so many examples then you FIRST.
Yes, us first. By a considerable distance. See post #58, which I made two-and-a-half weeks ago, for a brief introduction to the diversity of eyes in nature.
Now we, of course, are limited to drawing our examples from reality. You, on the other hand, were limited only by what you could make up, something that creationists are usually good at. But you've got nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 200 of 242 (639121)
10-28-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Robert Byers
10-28-2011 5:22 AM


Hi Robert,
I'm removing your posting privileges in this forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Robert Byers, posted 10-28-2011 5:22 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 201 of 242 (639135)
10-28-2011 9:32 AM


No Substitute
What, Robert's gone? But where else will I find an opponent with his matchless qualities as a debater?
I suppose in principle I could pull words at random out of a hat, but I don't have a hat.

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Larni, posted 10-28-2011 9:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2011 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 202 of 242 (639137)
10-28-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2011 9:32 AM


Re: No Substitute
Ah, no, hold on.
I give you.... zi ko.
Knock yourself out.

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 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2011 9:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 242 (639140)
10-28-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by frako
10-28-2011 6:26 AM


Because you believe we should see triangle shaped eyes whitout an opening for light, able to see sound waves
Well that kind of construction might be okay for echo location.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 6:26 AM frako has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 204 of 242 (639194)
10-28-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Robert Byers
10-27-2011 6:35 AM


I see you have been banned from replying, but on the off chance you might still be reading this thread and that you might actually try learning something about evolution. (I know....I'm delusional)
Robert Byers writes:
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.
Good grief, Bob! Says who? The RBToE (Robert Byers Theory of Evolution) that only ONE person on the whole fucking planet believes or can understand?
People have been explaining over and over to you that NONE of what you are saying is close to what the ToE actually says. It is just fantasy gibberish that you are making up.
The eyes of mammals alone should be almost unrecognizable compared to each other.
Says who? Oh yeah, the RBToE.
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.
More delusions. Eyes are all organs that detect light, but they do it in thousands of ways.
The patterns of differences and similarities of eyes within and between groups of animals show EXACTLY THE SAME patterns of differences and similarities that we see when we group them based on other anatomical features.
We see the same nested hierarchies when we group them based on many different features.
Within a group the eyes are usually more alike than than they are with eyes from creatures outside the group.
Mammals are more alike with each other than they are with birds, reptiles or fishes. Mammals, birds and reptiles are more alike than they are with mollusks or jelly fish.
Interestingly, this pattern of hierarchies is exactly the same as when we group these animals based on evolutionary lines of descent.
So while we can see that mammal eyes are similar we can also see that cat eyes are more similar to each other than they are to horses or dogs or humans.
This is exactly what the ToE predicts....that we will see patterns of similarities and differences the follow the evolutionary lines of descent.
The Theory of Evolution DOES NOT predict that we will see wild MASSIVE diversity, of eyes. within every group. Only the RBToE says that.

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:11 AM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 208 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:18 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 242 (639220)
10-28-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2011 9:32 AM


Re: No Substitute
Nothing wrong with going a few rounds with the heavy bag. But let's not confuse that work out with actually sparring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2011 9:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 242 (639238)
10-29-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Tanypteryx
10-28-2011 4:33 PM


quote:
The patterns of differences and similarities of eyes within and between groups of animals show EXACTLY THE SAME patterns of differences and similarities that we see when we group them based on other anatomical features.
We see the same nested hierarchies when we group them based on many different features.
Nicely said. This (and not the mere existence of diversity) is an argument for the theory of evolution.
An informed creationist might have done a better job of arguing that the nesting is a result of God's will in creating those animals. Of course, other evidence, such as the fossil record suggests that God did not actually create all of those animals at a single point in time, which kind of makes the effort not worthwhile (IMO).
Robert's arguments missed the mark because in many cases he did not know what animals have what kinds of eyes before he heard it here, and because he could believed he could predict what kind of eyes God would give creatures with some rather simplistic rules. He failed miserably, and his peers seem content to watch him go down in flames.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-28-2011 4:33 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 242 (639240)
10-29-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Tanypteryx
10-28-2011 4:33 PM


These eyes...
Duplicate
Edited by NoNukes, : Doggone flaky internet connection...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-28-2011 4:33 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4239 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 209 of 242 (639288)
10-30-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2011 2:26 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
quote:
No it doesn't, this is just something creationists have made up.
I didnt know that Stephen Jay Gould was a creationist.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disapear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed".
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2011 2:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2011 1:11 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 210 of 242 (639292)
10-30-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Portillo
10-30-2011 12:32 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
I didnt know that Stephen Jay Gould was a creationist.
He's not. In fact, here's what he had to say about creationists and their shameless lies about and cherry-picking of his words:
Transitions are often found in the fossil record. [...] Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I amfor I have become a major target of these practices. [...] Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
What does it say about creationism that, when you guys want a reputable scientist to prop up your silly fantasies, the best you can do is someone who's said almost in as many words that anyone who does so is either a liar or a fool?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Portillo, posted 10-30-2011 12:32 AM Portillo 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