Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 14/11 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 4246 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 226 of 242 (640704)
11-11-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Granny Magda
10-30-2011 6:17 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
There is no such thing as a simple eye. Trilobite eyes for example. Despite evolution claiming that trilobites are primitive creatures, research shows that they had compound eyes. 100 eyes on each side of its head. Some have four lenses on each eye so that they could see with undistorted vision. Incredible complexity and yet one of the first things found in the fossil record. If different types of eyes evolved independently, how can they be traced to a common ancestor? It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2011 12:58 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 228 by Larni, posted 11-12-2011 3:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 229 by frako, posted 11-12-2011 3:49 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 230 by Granny Magda, posted 11-12-2011 6:20 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 227 of 242 (640707)
11-12-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Portillo
11-11-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
There is no such thing as a simple eye.
Yes there is. A simple eye is an eye which is not compound.
Despite evolution claiming that trilobites are primitive creatures ...
Where is this claimed?
100 eyes on each side of its head.
Apart from the eyeless varieties, such as Agnostina.
If different types of eyes evolved independently, how can they be traced to a common ancestor?
Who said they could? According to biologists, the eye evolved several times independently.
It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.
That sentence needs the word "because" in it, followed by a further clause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Portillo, posted 11-11-2011 11:44 PM Portillo has not replied

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


Message 228 of 242 (640710)
11-12-2011 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Portillo
11-11-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.
Any chance of supporting this point with evidence? It makes perfect sense to me: what is your rationale, here?

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 226 by Portillo, posted 11-11-2011 11:44 PM Portillo has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 229 of 242 (640711)
11-12-2011 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Portillo
11-11-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
There is no such thing as a simple eye.
Simple Eyes Of Only Two Cells Guide Marine Zooplankton To The Light
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/11/081119140705.htm
So only 2 cells guide the Zooplankton to the Light is this a simple enough eye for you cause i dont think it can get any simpler.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Portillo, posted 11-11-2011 11:44 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(7)
Message 230 of 242 (640713)
11-12-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Portillo
11-11-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
Hi Portillo,
There is no such thing as a simple eye.
Planarian worms would disagree with you. They have simple eye spots.
Trilobite eyes for example.
Showing one example of a complex eye does not render my example of a simple eye invalid.
Despite evolution claiming that trilobites are primitive creatures,
That it not a claim that I would make. "Primitive" is only meaningful in evolutionary terms when the creature in question left modern descendants. The trilobites didn't, they went extinct.
research shows that they had compound eyes. 100 eyes on each side of its head. Some have four lenses on each eye so that they could see with undistorted vision.
And some had no eyes at all. Your point?
Also, you are aware aren't you, that the three major groups of trilobite eyes fall into an nested hierarchy? And that they emerge in the fossil record only over great periods of time, just as we would expect had they evolved?
Incredible complexity and yet one of the first things found in the fossil record.
This claim is straightforwardly false. Trilobites are far from the first things found in the fossil record. Ever heard of stromatolites? These fossils, left by cyanobacteria, go back at least 2 billion years, compared to the trilobites' 526 million years.
If different types of eyes evolved independently, how can they be traced to a common ancestor?
Good question. Of course, I have already answered it.
The commonality between eyes is obvious when you look at their construction. They are all made up of the same basic photoreceptors; ciliary and rhabdomeric. They share genes, even between distantly related groups like molluscs and planarians.
What you need to understand is that the last common ancestor of all these groups would have had very primitive light-sensing abilities, likely without anything recognisable as a modern eye. After the various lineages split off, they independently took these building blocks and developed them, but each group took a slightly different path with them, leading to the diverse forms observable today. This is all entirely consistent with an evolutionary model.
It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.
When we point to the eyes of a scallop and a squid and a human, and compare them, we are not suggesting that one evolved from the other. Rather, such comparisons are intended to show that each individual stage of the putative route of vertebrate eye evolution is, by itself, possible.
One thing I can't help but notice is that you still haven't made it any clearer what you meant by this;
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process.
I would be grateful if you could elaborate on this. What evidence exactly would you expect to see if evolution were true? What kind of "process" would you expect to see and over what kind of time-scale?
I'm sorry to harp on at you, but this is an important question. How can you tell us that there's no evidence for evolution if you can't tell us what evidence we should expect evolution to leave?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Portillo, posted 11-11-2011 11:44 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-14-2011 1:12 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 242 (640930)
11-14-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Granny Magda
11-12-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
What evidence exactly would you expect to see if evolution were true?
I'm getting the sense that they really do expect for us to providing evidence of the scallop eye evolving into the squid eye and the squid eye evolving into the human eye, as if that's what the ToE suggests.
I think they really are that clueless...
quote:
It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.
the different types of eyes, in an evolutionary sequence
The stupid, it burns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Granny Magda, posted 11-12-2011 6:20 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Granny Magda, posted 11-15-2011 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 4:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 232 of 242 (641032)
11-15-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
11-14-2011 1:12 PM


Expectations
Hi CS,
I think I might make the question "What evidence exactly would you expect to see if evolution were true?" my go to question for creationist posters and I'll tell you for why. I reckon that you'll usually see three basic responses to that question.
1) Unreasonable Demands I want to see the fossils! All of them! I want to see fossils for every single generation, for every imaginable iteration of each and every evolutionary lineage going back to the dawn of time. And I want them all to have perfectly fossilised eyes demonstrating every tiny change that took place throughout their history. I would also like the moon on a stick, served to me by a flying pig.
Essentially, the creationist will demand far more evidence than we might ever hope to find. Usually they will place much less stringent requirements upon their own arguments.
2) Strawman Intermediate forms? Well then, just show me a crocoduck! Or a half-man-half-monkey!! Show me a scallop turning into a squid!!!Show me life springing from my peanut butter jar!!!! Or any number of other crazy things!!!!!!!!!!
Here, the creationist demands evidence for a version of evolution that no sane biologist would recognise. These kind of demands seem to spring from severe misconceptions about what the ToE actually says. Quite often, if we were to provide this kind of evidence, we would falsify the ToE, not prove it.
3) Reasonable Demands With this one the creationist asks for reasonable evidence, that is something that is both compatible with the real ToE and is something that we might reasonably expect to be able to observe.
I can't think of any illustrative examples off hand, because we so rarely get asked this kind of question on these forums. In theory though, should this happen, you could just show them the evidence.
I'm not saying that this will work any better than any other approach, but it's got to be worth a shot.
And if that fails, I'll just call them dumbasses and say rude things about Jesus.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-14-2011 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 11-15-2011 5:59 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3798 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 233 of 242 (641036)
11-15-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Granny Magda
11-15-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Expectations
GM writes:
I can't think of any illustrative examples off hand, because we so rarely get asked this kind of question on these forums. In theory though, should this happen, you could just show them the evidence.
I think the 'whale evolution' thread would probably count. (Sorry, CBA to find a link to it.)
But it was a notably unique thread.

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 232 by Granny Magda, posted 11-15-2011 4:38 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4246 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 234 of 242 (641231)
11-18-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
11-14-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
quote:
The stupid, it burns.
The condescending attitude and insults is pathetic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-14-2011 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Panda, posted 11-18-2011 5:44 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 236 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 7:50 AM Portillo has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3798 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 235 of 242 (641239)
11-18-2011 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
11-18-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
Responding to Granny Magda's Message 230 would have been far more constructive.

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 234 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 4:21 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 236 of 242 (641247)
11-18-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
11-18-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
Hi Portillo,
Moderators try to discourage insults, but in this case they seem to be born out of frustration. You posted Message 220 two weeks ago, received 5 responses, answered none. You posted Message 226 a week ago, received 4 responses, answered none. If you're going to post provocative claims like there's no such thing as a simple eye and then not respond, you've got to expect some frustration. I think the other participants are beginning to wonder if you've slipped into drive-by mode (i.e., just pass through from time to time and occasionally posting with no intention of following up).
Panda's suggestion seems sound, just respond to Message 230, or at least some messages so that there can be actual discussion, and so that people understand why you would say things that, at least on the surface, seem clearly wrong.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 4:21 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 8:18 AM Admin has replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4246 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 237 of 242 (641252)
11-18-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Admin
11-18-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
I responded to Granny Magda twice didnt I?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 7:50 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 12:51 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 238 of 242 (641290)
11-18-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Portillo
11-18-2011 8:18 AM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
Portillo writes:
I responded to Granny Magda twice didnt I?
So your response to a moderator message noting your lack of response to recent posts and requesting that you respond to at least some of them is to respond with a message notable for it unresponsiveness? Interesting.
To repeat, Panda's suggestion seems sound, just respond to Message 230, or at least some messages so that there can be actual discussion, and so that people understand why you would say things that, at least on the surface, seem clearly wrong.
Please, no replies to this message.
Edited by Admin, : Minor cleanup.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 8:18 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Big_Al35, posted 11-26-2011 7:16 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 885 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 239 of 242 (642226)
11-26-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Admin
11-18-2011 12:51 PM


Re: Eyes, Remember?
I dunno bout eyes but I'm here testing my new iPad. Hope I can post stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 12:51 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-01-2011 12:50 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Moon-Ra
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-01-2011


(2)
Message 240 of 242 (642770)
12-01-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Big_Al35
11-26-2011 7:16 PM


New member here, a bit of background about me before I start posting, I am a biologist that went to graduate school, all the way, and now teach in a University.
Anyhow, back on topic, it seems like someone has been reading "Darwin's Blackbox". The entire argument of this book can be deconstructed if we go back in time just a little bit. Today the blackbox is the eye, 50 years ago it was the genetic code (nobody knew DNA existed), and 50 years from now we will know how the eye evolved, but there will be another blackbox.
It may be true that we are missing some steps on eye evolution (or a few other things), but this by no means invalidates the Theory of Evolution. Just like missing fossils does not invalidate it. If the entire human civilization was wiped out and all that was left was a religious text from the 1500's and an iPad, extra-terrestrial creationists would certainly conclude there were two civilizations on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Big_Al35, posted 11-26-2011 7:16 PM Big_Al35 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