Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-04-08 08:04:33
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha
Good try Serge. First of all, the human eye was the first thing that came up in my mind, I wasn't trying to copy others and wasn't aware of the fact that it had been discussed before. But the extract you copied isn't really sound:

Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
COULD HAVE. No reason for a lens to form, none at all, since HALF a lens has no effect at all. All the person who wrote this article did is shift the debate to a slightly smaller scale i.e. from the eye in its entirety forming to how the seperate parts themselves formed. The argument still holds for the way a lens formed, or the retina itself.

At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
Again, the assumption is made that AT THE SAME TIME something happened by complete coincidence. No basis for this assumption at all. This actually confirms what I already said above, the eye could only have formed if at the SAME TIME everything just randomly went in the right direction. This kind of speculation is no different than assuming an almighty being just created everything out of nowhere.

I guess part of my point is this -- it's easy to say after the fact: and then this happened, and then of course that could have happened, and hey look, there's your eye! However, there's no plausible reason as to WHY these things would have happened. WHY would a double-layered transparent tissue (a complex thing to have formed out of nowhere in it's own right) suddenly appear on top of the light-sensitive spot, and on a large scale in many organisms around the same time? A doubly-layered transparent tissue is just as likely to have randomly formed on any other part of the body of the organism, and exactly how often do we see this mutation occuring? Exactly. It's perfectly POSSIBLE for it to have happened, but so is having a God who created everything. In my mind, the God idea actually sounds more likely.

Nice try though.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2007-04-08 08:18:06)

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:21:03
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

sergeriver wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Good try Serge. First of all, the human aye was the frist thing that came up in my mind, I wasn't trying to copy others and wasn't aware of the fact that it had been discussed before. But the extract you copied isn't really sound:

Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
COULD HAVE. No reason for a lens to form, none at all, since HALF a lens has no effect at all. All the person who wrote this article did is shift the debate to a slightly smaller scale i.e. from the eye in its entirety forming to how the seperate parts themselves formed. The argument still holds for the way a lens formed, or the retina itself.

Nice try though.
All you have to disprove Evolution is the eye issue?  Besides, it's been explained how the human eye evolved.  Read this one if you didn't like the other article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
First let's make one thing clear. I actually believe in evolution. The eye issue is not meant to disprove anything, just to show that evolution can't explain everything. It's also not the only point I have, but it's the first one that came to mind and the easiest to explain to the layman.

As I said above, (I edited my post) it's easy to say after the fact "well this could have happened, and then probably this could have happened and tadahh there's your eye" but there's simply no sound basis for making these unlikely assumptions.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:21:49
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|7018|NYC / Hamburg

LaidBackNinja wrote:

.....
here's the url

Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the βγ-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved.

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.

The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.

The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.
The problem with this debate is that we have no access to proper scientific material and only texts that are openly availibe seem to be written for 5th graders. I took a look at our uni library catalog and there are loads of books as well as thesis' that talk about this "problem". I have read though some of the abstracts, but I in fact cannot fully understand what they are saying, except that the eye doesn't disprove evolution . My biology knowledge is just too limited to fully argue this out.

But if you have access to a uni-library please take a look at this (I surely will, but most probably won't understand it)

Last edited by max (2007-04-08 08:22:46)

once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2007-04-08 08:23:22
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7208|Argentina

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Good try Serge. First of all, the human eye was the first thing that came up in my mind, I wasn't trying to copy others and wasn't aware of the fact that it had been discussed before. But the extract you copied isn't really sound:

Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
COULD HAVE. No reason for a lens to form, none at all, since HALF a lens has no effect at all. All the person who wrote this article did is shift the debate to a slightly smaller scale i.e. from the eye in its entirety forming to how the seperate parts themselves formed. The argument still holds for the way a lens formed, or the retina itself.

At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
Again, the assumption is made that AT THE SAME TIME something happened by complete coincidence. No basis for this assumption at all. This actually confirms what I already said above, the eye could only have formed if at the SAME TIME everything just randomly went in the right direction. This kind of speculation is no different than assuming an almighty being just created everything out of nowhere.

I guess part of my point is this -- it's easy to say after the fact: and then this happened, and then of course that could have happened, and hey look, there's your eye! However, there's no plausible reason as to WHY these things would have happened. WHY would a double-layered transparent tissue (a complex thing to have formed out of nowhere in it's own right) suddenly appear on top of the light-sensitive spot, and on a large scale in many organisms around the same time? A doubly-layered transparent tissue is just as likely to have randomly formed on any other part of the body of the organism, and exactly how often do we see this mutation occuring? Exactly. It's perfectly POSSIBLE for it to have happened, but so is having a God who created everything. In my mind, the God idea actually sounds more likely.

Nice try though.
All you have to disprove Evolution is the eye issue?  Besides, it's been explained how the human eye evolved.  Read this one if you didn't like the other article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
2007-04-08 08:26:34
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right
At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)

In respone to the other post:

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.
I must admit I'm no biologist, but if I understand this correctly, it says that certain genes, responsible for both the light-sensitivity and the lenses, are linked? So that the light-sensitivity and the lens actually did form at the same time? Now what are the odds of that. All perfectly explicable by science, but doesn't it all fit so neatly together that it as least gives you a sneaking suspicion it might not all be coincidence?

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2007-04-08 08:33:45)

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:33:02
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7208|Argentina

LaidBackNinja wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right
At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vertebrate_eye

wikievo wrote:

Vertebrates (mammals and closely related classes) have evolved a suboptimal eye. In the eyes of vertebrates the photo-sensitive cells lie behind the optic nerve endings and a layer of blood vessels. These must emerge through the back of the retina, leaving a hole in the organ with no light-sensitive cells, forming a blind spot. Other animals, such as cephalopods (squid and octopus) and insects, which have evolved sight independently, have much more efficient eyes because they do not have a blind spot, or nerves between the photo-sensitive cells and the light source. In cephalopods, the photocells in the retina each point towards the light, with their nerves out behind.

There are three failings of this system.

Moreover, it is not just that a blind spot in an eye (think about it!) is a poor design. This 'design' also has consequences. Firstly, we do not normally notice the blind spot, because our brains fill in the missing bit for us. Which means that extra brain processing is required to give us an unimpeded picture of the world -- unimpeded, that is, by the design flaw. More design to correct the initial design is surely not intelligent design!

The second problem is a minor loss of visual acuity due to having the extra material between the retina and the light. This is, however, so minor it can be safely ignored.

The worst result of the design is its tendency towards detached retina. Each beat of the heart stretches and then relaxes the retina, pulling it away from the back of the eye. Any damage to the retina is thus exaggerated by each and every beat of the heart, something that wouldn't happen if the blood supply was attached from the rear. Detached retina is the most common cause of blindness in the world and is entirely a result of this moronically bad design. The analogous cephalopod eye, with its 'right way round' retina, cannot suffer from this because the retina is anchored into the blood-supplying tissue by the nerve wiring itself.

The vertebrate 'design' can easily be explained by the theory of evolution - a proto-eye evolved which was simply an area of light-sensitive skin. Nerve endings were between the light sensitive area and the light sensitive cells by chance - it was 50/50 how the cells were developed. Since the light sensitive cells gave the individuals which possessed them a slight selection advantage they stuck, and developed into an eye.

Humans' eyes are even worse design than just having a back-to-front retina. Many animals have bi-focal lenses and are able to magnify objects much further away than humans are capable of seeing.

Creationists ask "what use is half an eye?" The answer is "a lot". After all, we've got one!
2007-04-08 08:37:33
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

sergeriver wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right
At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vertebrate_eye

wikievo wrote:

The vertebrate 'design' can easily be explained by the theory of evolution - a proto-eye evolved which was simply an area of light-sensitive skin. Nerve endings were between the light sensitive area and the light sensitive cells by chance - it was 50/50 how the cells were developed. Since the light sensitive cells gave the individuals which possessed them a slight selection advantage they stuck, and developed into an eye.

Humans' eyes are even worse design than just having a back-to-front retina. Many animals have bi-focal lenses and are able to magnify objects much further away than humans are capable of seeing.

Creationists ask "what use is half an eye?" The answer is "a lot". After all, we've got one!
First of all, our eye is not a half working one, it works. I can read the letters on my screen, so I'd say it's pretty good. But that's just semantics. It's the same with hands and claws, it just depends on what you're going to use them for. Writing or ripping open prey. Actually on topic:

Since the light sensitive cells gave the individuals which possessed them a slight selection advantage they stuck, and developed into an eye.
That's the logic jump I'm talking about right there. How exactly does 'and it delevoped into an eye' explain anything?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:39:57
jonsimon
Member
+224|6946

LaidBackNinja wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right
At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
The eye was useful when it was just a few photosensitive cells. That's why animals with eyes survived, it was useful. The narrowing of the opening is just further usefullness, allowing for better directional sensing. The eye only needed two parts to be useful, photosensitive cells, and a neurotransmitting structure.
2007-04-08 08:41:06
jonsimon
Member
+224|6946

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Since the light sensitive cells gave the individuals which possessed them a slight selection advantage they stuck, and developed into an eye.
That's the logic jump I'm talking about right there. How exactly does 'and it delevoped into an eye' explain anything?
It's not a leap in logic, evolution fills the gap.
2007-04-08 08:42:03
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

jonsimon wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right
At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed,
there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
The eye was useful when it was just a few photosensitive cells. That's why animals with eyes survived, it was useful. The narrowing of the opening is just further usefullness, allowing for better directional sensing. The eye only needed two parts to be useful, photosensitive cells, and a neurotransmitting structure.
Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:42:19
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|7018|NYC / Hamburg

LaidBackNinja wrote:

In respone to the other post:

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.
I must admit I'm no biologist, but if I understand this correctly, it says that certain genes, responsible for both the light-sensitivity and the lenses, are linked? So that the light-sensitivity and the lens actually did form at the same time? Now what are the odds of that. All perfectly explicable by science, but doesn't it all fit so neatly together that it as least gives you a sneaking suspicion it might not all be coincidence?
Even so, this doesn't disprove evolution. I'm sure that if you read the proper scientific literature there will be a good explanation why this is so. Trouble is that we are trying to prove/disprove evolution with only rudimentary knowledge of the matter and strongly biased articles which are based on wrongly interpreted papers.

On Tuesday when I return to uni, I'm going to read though some proper (i.e. written by real scientists who know what they are talking about) papers. Don't think that will help my understanding much though because I can't even understand the abstracts
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2007-04-08 08:46:17
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

max wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

In respone to the other post:

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.
I must admit I'm no biologist, but if I understand this correctly, it says that certain genes, responsible for both the light-sensitivity and the lenses, are linked? So that the light-sensitivity and the lens actually did form at the same time? Now what are the odds of that. All perfectly explicable by science, but doesn't it all fit so neatly together that it as least gives you a sneaking suspicion it might not all be coincidence?
Even so, this doesn't disprove evolution. I'm sure that if you read the proper scientific literature there will be a good explanation why this is so. Trouble is that we are trying to prove/disprove evolution with only rudimentary knowledge of the matter and strongly biased articles which are based on wrongly interpreted papers.

On Tuesday when I return to uni, I'm going to read though some proper (i.e. written by real scientists who know what they are talking about) papers. Don't think that will help my understanding much though because I can't even understand the abstracts
You're probably right anyway. I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to disprove evolution. That would be stupid. I'm just trying to show that evolution itself is not the answer to everything and for something that tries to disprove 'superstition' (religion), it requires quite a few leaps of faith itself. I am also trying to say that the theory (or fact) of evolution does not in itself actually disprove religion. I've actually written an extensive paper about this once, but this thread is not the place for it.
I just don't want to be known as the nutcase who tried to disprove evolution because I actually DO believe in evolution.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2007-04-08 08:49:07)

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 08:51:31
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|7018|NYC / Hamburg

LaidBackNinja wrote:

max wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

In respone to the other post:


I must admit I'm no biologist, but if I understand this correctly, it says that certain genes, responsible for both the light-sensitivity and the lenses, are linked? So that the light-sensitivity and the lens actually did form at the same time? Now what are the odds of that. All perfectly explicable by science, but doesn't it all fit so neatly together that it as least gives you a sneaking suspicion it might not all be coincidence?
Even so, this doesn't disprove evolution. I'm sure that if you read the proper scientific literature there will be a good explanation why this is so. Trouble is that we are trying to prove/disprove evolution with only rudimentary knowledge of the matter and strongly biased articles which are based on wrongly interpreted papers.

On Tuesday when I return to uni, I'm going to read though some proper (i.e. written by real scientists who know what they are talking about) papers. Don't think that will help my understanding much though because I can't even understand the abstracts
You're probably right anyway. I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to disprove evolution. That would be stupid. I'm just trying to show that evolution itself is not the answer to everything and for something that tries to disprove 'superstition' (religion), it requires quite a few leaps of faith itself. I am also trying to say that the theory (or fact) of evolution does not in itself actually disprove religion. I've actually written an extensive paper about this once, but this thread is not the place for it.
I just don't want to be known as the nutcase who tried to disprove evolution because I actually DO believe in evolution.
I understand that. What I wrote was more of an preemptive strike against anyone who would pick up where you left off. +1 to you
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2007-04-08 08:52:09
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|7001|CH/BR - in UK

LaidBackNinja wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where exactly did anyone mention that the entire eye formed at the same time?
Right

there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
The eye was useful when it was just a few photosensitive cells. That's why animals with eyes survived, it was useful. The narrowing of the opening is just further usefullness, allowing for better directional sensing. The eye only needed two parts to be useful, photosensitive cells, and a neurotransmitting structure.
Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
2007-04-08 08:58:55
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7123|Colorado
There is no reasoning with religious people because they have no reason of their own, it is replaced by whatever the church chooses to tell them which they aggressively defend so they don't think to themselves that they are wasting their time & resources on nonsense.
To think for themselves would make them feel unsafe & very unsure of anything because they are so used to being told what is & is not.
Check your premises.
2007-04-08 09:04:08
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


The eye was useful when it was just a few photosensitive cells. That's why animals with eyes survived, it was useful. The narrowing of the opening is just further usefullness, allowing for better directional sensing. The eye only needed two parts to be useful, photosensitive cells, and a neurotransmitting structure.
Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 09:07:56
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|7001|CH/BR - in UK

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:


Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
Someone with a lens on their ass wouldn't survive very long, would he? He'd (A) Get his eyes poked out or (B) Have no use for eyes there. It does not imply intelligent design as much as it does "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution.

-konfusion
2007-04-08 09:08:17
jonsimon
Member
+224|6946

LaidBackNinja wrote:

You're probably right anyway. I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to disprove evolution. That would be stupid. I'm just trying to show that evolution itself is not the answer to everything and for something that tries to disprove 'superstition' (religion), it requires quite a few leaps of faith itself. I am also trying to say that the theory (or fact) of evolution does not in itself actually disprove religion. I've actually written an extensive paper about this once, but this thread is not the place for it.
I just don't want to be known as the nutcase who tried to disprove evolution because I actually DO believe in evolution.
Why didn't you say so? Evolution does require some trust, but it is trust in a different phenomenon. With reason you must place your faith in the idea that you could know everything with enough information. With religion you must place your faith in another persona, and trust that he knows everything for you. Reason is so much more attractive because it is easier for a man to trust himself than to trust another he does not know.
2007-04-08 09:13:12
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:


I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
Someone with a lens on their ass wouldn't survive very long, would he? He'd (A) Get his eyes poked out or (B) Have no use for eyes there. It does not imply intelligent design as much as it does "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution.

-konfusion
You misunderstood me. I mean, did you ever see someone grow a lens out of his ass in addition to the eyes he already has on his head? Just because we already have working eyes in out skulls is no reason for another pair of eyes not to try and evolve out of our asses.
What I'm trying to say is this -- having your eyes in your skull seems like a logical and rational decision, and your body is not capable of making logical and rational decisions. All it can do is trial and error. So, it should, by trial and error, have become clear that people with eyes in their skulls and not in their asses have the greater chance for survival. Which means that in some point at time, somebody ought to have had an eye in his ass. So why don't we see this mutation occuring?
After all, random mutations happening in exactly the right spot (an eye forming in your skull) doesn't seem very 'random' at all, does it?
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 09:22:04
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|7018|NYC / Hamburg

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:


That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
Someone with a lens on their ass wouldn't survive very long, would he? He'd (A) Get his eyes poked out or (B) Have no use for eyes there. It does not imply intelligent design as much as it does "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution.

-konfusion
You misunderstood me. I mean, did you ever see someone grow a lens out of his ass in addition to the eyes he already has on his head? Just because we already have working eyes in out skulls is no reason for another pair of eyes not to try and evolve out of our asses.
What I'm trying to say is this -- having your eyes in your skull seems like a logical and rational decision, and your body is not capable of making logical and rational decisions. All it can do is trial and error. So, it should, by trial and error, have become clear that people with eyes in their skulls and not in their asses have the greater chance for survival. Which means that in some point at time, somebody ought to have had an eye in his ass. So why don't we see this mutation occuring?
After all, random mutations happening in exactly the right spot (an eye forming in your skull) doesn't seem very 'random' at all, does it?
well we do sometimes see weird mutations, but usually they aren't even born alive or die after 1 generation. Also remember that the evolution of specific parts of the eye also took many generations. Even if something developed an early stage of an eye on their ass, it would probably get dropped by evolution early on. Evolution wise having an eye in a bad spot is as bad as having no eye => doesn't get selected => dies out
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2007-04-08 09:26:43
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7160|Charlie One Alpha

max wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:


Someone with a lens on their ass wouldn't survive very long, would he? He'd (A) Get his eyes poked out or (B) Have no use for eyes there. It does not imply intelligent design as much as it does "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution.

-konfusion
You misunderstood me. I mean, did you ever see someone grow a lens out of his ass in addition to the eyes he already has on his head? Just because we already have working eyes in out skulls is no reason for another pair of eyes not to try and evolve out of our asses.
What I'm trying to say is this -- having your eyes in your skull seems like a logical and rational decision, and your body is not capable of making logical and rational decisions. All it can do is trial and error. So, it should, by trial and error, have become clear that people with eyes in their skulls and not in their asses have the greater chance for survival. Which means that in some point at time, somebody ought to have had an eye in his ass. So why don't we see this mutation occuring?
After all, random mutations happening in exactly the right spot (an eye forming in your skull) doesn't seem very 'random' at all, does it?
well we do sometimes see weird mutations, but usually they aren't even born alive or die after 1 generation. Also remember that the evolution of specific parts of the eye also took many generations. Even if something developed an early stage of an eye on their ass, it would probably get dropped by evolution early on. Evolution wise having an eye in a bad spot is as bad as having no eye => doesn't get selected => dies out
True, but the image of someone walking around with an eye on their ass was enough incentive for me to write above paragraph.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-08 09:34:02
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|7018|NYC / Hamburg

LaidBackNinja wrote:

max wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:


You misunderstood me. I mean, did you ever see someone grow a lens out of his ass in addition to the eyes he already has on his head? Just because we already have working eyes in out skulls is no reason for another pair of eyes not to try and evolve out of our asses.
What I'm trying to say is this -- having your eyes in your skull seems like a logical and rational decision, and your body is not capable of making logical and rational decisions. All it can do is trial and error. So, it should, by trial and error, have become clear that people with eyes in their skulls and not in their asses have the greater chance for survival. Which means that in some point at time, somebody ought to have had an eye in his ass. So why don't we see this mutation occuring?
After all, random mutations happening in exactly the right spot (an eye forming in your skull) doesn't seem very 'random' at all, does it?
well we do sometimes see weird mutations, but usually they aren't even born alive or die after 1 generation. Also remember that the evolution of specific parts of the eye also took many generations. Even if something developed an early stage of an eye on their ass, it would probably get dropped by evolution early on. Evolution wise having an eye in a bad spot is as bad as having no eye => doesn't get selected => dies out
True, but the image of someone walking around with an eye on their ass was enough incentive for me to write above paragraph.
lol, I guess that would be pretty sweet.
*hopes that he develops a 5th sense*
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2007-04-08 09:56:58
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7208|Argentina

LaidBackNinja wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Right

there

(Not the entire eye indeed, but enough of the parts for the incomplete eye to actually become useful)
The eye was useful when it was just a few photosensitive cells. That's why animals with eyes survived, it was useful. The narrowing of the opening is just further usefullness, allowing for better directional sensing. The eye only needed two parts to be useful, photosensitive cells, and a neurotransmitting structure.
Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
Why do you have your balls hanging down there?  Evolution.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

max wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

In respone to the other post:


I must admit I'm no biologist, but if I understand this correctly, it says that certain genes, responsible for both the light-sensitivity and the lenses, are linked? So that the light-sensitivity and the lens actually did form at the same time? Now what are the odds of that. All perfectly explicable by science, but doesn't it all fit so neatly together that it as least gives you a sneaking suspicion it might not all be coincidence?
Even so, this doesn't disprove evolution. I'm sure that if you read the proper scientific literature there will be a good explanation why this is so. Trouble is that we are trying to prove/disprove evolution with only rudimentary knowledge of the matter and strongly biased articles which are based on wrongly interpreted papers.

On Tuesday when I return to uni, I'm going to read though some proper (i.e. written by real scientists who know what they are talking about) papers. Don't think that will help my understanding much though because I can't even understand the abstracts
You're probably right anyway. I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to disprove evolution. That would be stupid. I'm just trying to show that evolution itself is not the answer to everything and for something that tries to disprove 'superstition' (religion), it requires quite a few leaps of faith itself. I am also trying to say that the theory (or fact) of evolution does not in itself actually disprove religion. I've actually written an extensive paper about this once, but this thread is not the place for it.
I just don't want to be known as the nutcase who tried to disprove evolution because I actually DO believe in evolution.
And I'm not trying to disprove Religion:

Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Doesn't explain how a lens formed over it, instead of on any other part of the body. Sure, once the lens was there it was useful, but how did the body 'know' where to 'grow' the lens?
I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
No, that's natural selection.

Konfusion0 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

I'd say we could assume that it's opportune to have your eyes at a place so that they can tell where you're running, and where they, as more vulnerable cells, are protected.

-konfusion
That kind of reasoning implies intelligent design . Your body doesn't 'think' about these kind of things. However, did you ever see anyone with a lens growing out of their ass?
Someone with a lens on their ass wouldn't survive very long, would he? He'd (A) Get his eyes poked out or (B) Have no use for eyes there. It does not imply intelligent design as much as it does "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution.

-konfusion
Someone with a lens in his ass would make a happy homo.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-08 10:07:17)

2007-04-08 10:21:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7208|Argentina
The Eye Evolution:

1-Video narrated by Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.



2-Video about the model proposed by Zooligist Dan Eric Nilsen.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-08 10:22:29)

2007-04-10 11:41:19
topal63
. . .
+533|7169
Some other poeple's mindless dribble:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/relig … ss_01.html

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-10 11:41:37)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard