Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 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?
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4239 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 211 of 242 (639293)
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


Silly fantasy indeed. Maybe the ancestors were not fossilized, even though there are billions of fossils. The tree of life that is common to textbooks is actually drawn by the evolutionist. All you have are the leaves, the tree doesnt exist in nature.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2011 6:17 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 213 by Panda, posted 10-30-2011 8:03 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2011 5:49 PM Portillo has replied
 Message 215 by Pressie, posted 10-31-2011 4:33 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 10-31-2011 11:27 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 212 of 242 (639299)
10-30-2011 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


Eyes, Remember?
Hi Portillo,
This thread is the eye evolution thread, remember? It's not the "Random Whines About Evolution" thread or the "Let's Quote Mine Stephen Jay Gould!" thread. It's the eye evolution thread. For talking about eye evolution.
Do you have anything to say about eye evolution? Like a reply to message 153 for example? It's the one entitled Eye Evolution.
Or you might like to respond to this;
PZ Myers writes:
Eyes evolved independently multiple times: the cephalopod eye evolved about 480 million years ago, and the vertebrate eye is even older (490 to 600 million years), but both evolved long after the last common ancestor of molluscs and chordates, which lived about 750 million years ago. The LCA probably did not have an image-forming eye at all.
And that’s the key point: a true eye is a structure that has an image forming element, a retina, and some kind of morphological organization that allows a distant object to form a pattern of light on that retina. That organization can be something as simple as a cup-shaped depression or pinhole lens, or as elaborate as our camera eye, or an insect’s compound eye, or the mirror eyes of a scallop. An eye is photoreceptors + structure. Eyes have evolved multiple times; they’ve even evolved multiple times within the phylum Mollusca, and different lineages have adopted different strategies for forming images.
The LCA probably didn’t have an eye, but it did have photoreceptors, and the light sensitive cells were localized to patches on the side of the head. It even had two different classes of photoreceptors, ciliary and rhabdomeric. That’s how I can say that eyes demonstrate a pattern of common descent: animals share the same building block for an eye, these photoreceptor cells, but different lineages have assembled those building blocks into different kinds of eyes.
As was shown in one of the videos I linked to earlier, all eyes share basic elements, like ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptors. The difference is what structures evolved from these basic building blocks. Further, the differences in structure fall into a clear evolutionary pattern, with closely related creatures having similar eyes. Genetic analysis shows the same pattern. You can read more about it here; How Many Genes Does it Take to Make a Squid Eye?
So yeah. Eye evolution. Feel free to touch on that subject any time you like.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Portillo, posted 10-30-2011 2:06 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 4:21 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 226 by Portillo, posted 11-11-2011 11:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3791 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 213 of 242 (639304)
10-30-2011 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


Portillo writes:
Silly fantasy indeed. Maybe the ancestors were not fossilized, even though there are billions of fossils. The tree of life that is common to textbooks is actually drawn by the evolutionist. All you have are the leaves, the tree doesnt exist in nature.
Is this meant to be an apology for quote-mining Stephen Jay Gould?
Could you perhaps be honest and admit that your claim regarding Steven Gould was wrong?
And then could you support your statement that "The cambrian explosion proves that animals appear suddenly and fully formed", because Stephen Gould clearly does not support your claim.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

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

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


(1)
Message 214 of 242 (639349)
10-30-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


Silly fantasy indeed. Maybe the ancestors were not fossilized, even though there are billions of fossils.
Or maybe the paleontologist Stephen Gould knew more about paleontology than you do when he wrote: "Transitions are often found in the fossil record."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Portillo, posted 10-30-2011 2:06 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 215 of 242 (639378)
10-31-2011 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
10-30-2011 2:06 AM


Portillo writes:
Silly fantasy indeed. Maybe the ancestors were not fossilized, even though there are billions of fossils. The tree of life that is common to textbooks is actually drawn by the evolutionist. All you have are the leaves, the tree doesnt exist in nature.
You ignoring the fossils we have found won't let them magically disappear.

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

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


(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

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 217 of 242 (639410)
10-31-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Taq
10-31-2011 11:27 AM


Actually, it was first drawn by Linnaeus, 100 years before "Origin of Species" was published. The tree is formed by shared characteristics, not evolutionists.
Well, not really. Linnaeus recognised hierarchies of characteristics, but he didn't draw any 'tree of life'. You can argue the idea is derived from concepts recognised by non-evolutionary biologists, but a branching tree is, nonetheless, an evolutionists' idea, drawn and conceived by evolutionists. This seems to be the earliest drawing, from French botanist Augustin Augier in 1801 (warning, full size image is big)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 10-31-2011 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Taq, posted 11-01-2011 11:22 AM caffeine has not replied

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


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

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


Message 219 of 242 (639570)
11-02-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Granny Magda
10-30-2011 6:17 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
I will try to answer your question as soon as I can.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2011 6:17 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 220 of 242 (639575)
11-02-2011 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dr Adequate
10-30-2011 5:49 PM


Gould is right when he talks about sudden appearance and stasis. 100 million year old clam looks just like todays clams. 200 million year old crocodile looks like todays crocodiles. 300 million year old paddlefish looks like todays paddlefish. 50 million year old stingray looks like todays stingrays. 160 million year old squid looks like todays squids. 200 million year old lobster looks like todays lobsters. 300 million year old dragonfly looks like todays dragonflys. 250 million year old cockroach looks like todays cockroaches. 50 million year old beetle looks like todays beetles. 65 million year old bat looks like todays bats. Crickets, scorpians, flies, lizards, centipedes, spiders, termites all look like todays animals. Why didnt trilobites evolve into anything in 200 million years?
Many species were bigger in size in the past and there is variation within fundamentally stable species. But no visible step by step development of earlier forms. This isnt crazy creationism, but is scientifically and positively documented. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." - Steven M Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2011 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Panda, posted 11-02-2011 6:47 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 11-02-2011 9:29 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 223 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2011 9:54 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 224 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-04-2011 3:28 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 225 by Nuggin, posted 11-05-2011 2:07 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3791 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 221 of 242 (639582)
11-02-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:25 AM


Portillo writes:
Many species were bigger in size in the past and there is variation within fundamentally stable species. But no visible step by step development of earlier forms. This isnt crazy creationism, but is scientifically and positively documented. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." - Steven M Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process
Sorry to pop your balloon, Portillo - but that is a well documented quote-mine. It is a 'crazy creationism' lie.
The Quote Mine Project (Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines)
Scoll down to "Quote #3.11"...

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 222 of 242 (639589)
11-02-2011 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:25 AM


Portillo writes:
Gould is right when he talks about sudden appearance and stasis.
Yes he is. How does this work against the Theory of Evolution? Remember, Gould also said:
Gould writes:
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.
Portillo writes:
100 million year old clam ..trilobites evolve into anything in 200 million years?
You forgot about the first life found. Four billion old prokaryotes. Don't forget about them. However, we don't find any 4 billion old trilobites or clams. Or humans. We only came by later. Around 200 000 years ago. How does this tie in with creation?
Portillo writes:
Many species were bigger in size in the past and there is variation within fundamentally stable species.
I don't think different species of the dinoaurs were "fundamentally stable species", as they died out, although they survived for hundreds of millions of years. Only birds are left. Their descendents. We still don't even know whether humans are a "fundamentally stable species". Only around 200 000 years since we appeared!
Portillo writes:
But no visible step by step development of earlier forms.
You like your porkies, don't you? What about those where we do have visible step by step development from earlier forms? How does that tie in with creation? Just ignoring them?
Portillo writes:
This isnt crazy creationism, but is scientifically and positively documented.
It is real creationism. Porkies. That’s it.
Portillo writes:
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." - Steven M Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process
You like telling porkies, don’t you? Are porkies really all you have? (rhetorical question)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 AM Portillo has not replied

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


(3)
Message 223 of 242 (639593)
11-02-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:25 AM


Gould is right when he talks about sudden appearance and stasis.
Is Gould right when he says this?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 AM Portillo has not replied

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


(3)
Message 224 of 242 (639890)
11-04-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:25 AM


Portillo writes:
300 million year old paddlefish looks like todays paddlefish. 50 million year old stingray looks like todays stingrays. 160 million year old squid looks like todays squids. 200 million year old lobster looks like todays lobsters. 300 million year old dragonfly looks like todays dragonflys.
I will not address the others directly, but I can comment on dragonflies. I have spent my life studying the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). None of the fossil dragonflies from 300 million years ago belong to the same species as any modern dragonfly, or to the same genus, or even to the same family.
None of the modern families of Odonates are represented in the fossils discovered from 300 million years ago. All of those fossils are collectively called Proto-odonata. They share more characteristics with modern Odonates than with any other order of insects, but they have striking differences from the modern Odonates.
You mention larger size. Meganeura monyi, the largest fossil species of Proto-odonata discovered so far had a wing span of 27 inches and is ~325 million years old. The oldest fossil suspected to be related to the Odonates is ~404 million years old.
We do not know if any of the fossils discovered before the emergence of modern Odonate families are ancestral, but we can infer from the evidence that a Proto-odonate from that period was ancestral.
Why didn't trilobites evolve into anything in 200 million years?
They did. They evolved into a hugely diverse group of Trilobites.
You see, that is one of the things you do not seem to get. When new species evolve they still belong to the ancestral group, so Mammals are still vertebrates, dogs are still Mammals and so on.
This is what we mean when we refer to a "nested hierarchy".
Fossil species may superficially resemble modern species but they seldom, if ever, look exactly alike, and they very often cannot even be placed in modern families, let alone modern genera or species.

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 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2571 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 225 of 242 (639944)
11-05-2011 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:25 AM


But no visible step by step development of earlier forms.
You've continued to make this claim.
You've had evidence handed to you countless times.
You've then repeated the claim without addressing the evidence.
So, either you are being dishonest, you don't understand the big words, or you just can't handle the reality.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just terrifically uneducated.
What SPECIFICALLY are you asking to see?
What, in your mind, would be sufficient evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:25 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