For stupidissmart- ID over evolution
-
i hope u'll see this.
anyway, i came across this arguement and i'm pretty inteested to see how u will rebutt this;
theory of evolution has it's flaws and this can be seen in something quite near to us. our eyes. Consider the eye: a marvellous and highly complex instrument, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm, spherical and chromatic aberration. Here comes the problem: how does the lens get developed by random genetic variation and natural selection? I mean, there has to be simultaneous development of the optic nerve, relevant muscles, retina, rods and cones and many other delicate and complicated structures, all of which has to be adjusted together in such a way that they will be able to work together? What is involved isn't the eye, it is the whole visual system, including parts of the brain. Many different organs and suborgans have to be developed together and it is impossible that a series of mutations which is such that each member of the series has adaptive value, is also a step on the way to the eye, and is such that the last member is a human with such an eye. To suppose that the eye, with all these instrinsic details happened by pure chance or natural selection seems a tad far fetched? would u not agree?
sorry for the long post, but i am really interested to see ur rebuttal on this -
this has already been rebutted.Originally posted by ben1xy:i hope u'll see this.
anyway, i came across this arguement and i'm pretty inteested to see how u will rebutt this;
theory of evolution has it's flaws and this can be seen in something quite near to us. our eyes. Consider the eye: a marvellous and highly complex instrument, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm, spherical and chromatic aberration. Here comes the problem: how does the lens get developed by random genetic variation and natural selection? I mean, there has to be simultaneous development of the optic nerve, relevant muscles, retina, rods and cones and many other delicate and complicated structures, all of which has to be adjusted together in such a way that they will be able to work together? What is involved isn't the eye, it is the whole visual system, including parts of the brain. Many different organs and suborgans have to be developed together and it is impossible that a series of mutations which is such that each member of the series has adaptive value, is also a step on the way to the eye, and is such that the last member is a human with such an eye. To suppose that the eye, with all these instrinsic details happened by pure chance or natural selection seems a tad far fetched? would u not agree?
sorry for the long post, but i am really interested to see ur rebuttal on this
right, SIS? -
where ah? i wanna go readOriginally posted by Icemoon:this has already been rebutted.
right, SIS?
coz i find i cant fault the logic of the author -
anyway, if anyone knows, can they like direct me to the thread.
-
bump this upOriginally posted by ben1xy:anyway, if anyone knows, can they like direct me to the thread. -
please refer to the bumped thread on discussion with buddhist
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate âã-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona âã-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single âã-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations -
there are alot of creatures that through evolution does not even need eyes or other organs vital to us. -
I expect tis question so i posed the answer first
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
What use is half an eye?
Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.
Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:
Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)
Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.
Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.
Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.
Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.
Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).
The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.
The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.
Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.
The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.
The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).
Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.
Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.
If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate âã-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona âã-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single âã-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations
very nice rebuttal -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
This goes to show the power & glory of God's creation! God is so wonderfully creative that He can create all sorts of eyes for all sorts of environments etc!
I expect tis question so i posed the answer first
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
[b]What use is half an eye?
Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.
Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:
Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)
Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.
Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.
Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.
Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.
Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).
The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.
The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.
Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.
The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.
The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).
Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.
Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.
If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of.
[/b] -
Insinuations are not arguments.
-
Are u sure there were that many generations? Dont based your ideas on buddhism where there are millions of lifetimes or many universes. Pls give scientific proof that 364,000 generations have passed & gone. & how the evolution exactly took place like for eg the exact path of evolution etc. Mind u there were gaps here & there so much as i know of. Perhaps u can elaborate.Originally posted by stupidissmart:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate âã-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona âã-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single âã-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations
I quote u:Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
There is simply no proof like what u said above altho we can't claim the positive or negative. It's just conjecture or postulation. -
problem is many authors try to bullsh!t the readers by giving half-truths. they try to fill u wif tons of info without giving u the essential facts so that they can persuade u to believe in them.Originally posted by ben1xy:where ah? i wanna go read
coz i find i cant fault the logic of the author
becoz of their under-handed methods, they have lost credibility...
-
There is no proof of evolution. It's just a theory.Originally posted by stupidissmart:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate âã-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona âã-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single âã-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations -
guess u dont even know what "theory" means in Science.Originally posted by Raptured:There is no proof of evolution. It's just a theory.
A Scientific Theory is NOT a hypothesis or guessing-game.
And there are tons of evidence of evolution.
v pathetic. this is going nowhere. -
No proof of god either
Its just about tithing. -
This goes to show the power & glory of God's creation! God is so wonderfully creative that He can create all sorts of eyes for all sorts of environments etc!
Why not give credit to the flying speghetti mnster while u r at it since it is equally likely he is the one tat "creates" all sort of eyesAre u sure there were that many generations? Dont based your ideas on buddhism where there are millions of lifetimes or many universes. Pls give scientific proof that 364,000 generations have passed & gone. & how the evolution exactly took place like for eg the exact path of evolution etc. Mind u there were gaps here & there so much as i know of. Perhaps u can elaborate.
Com'on man... 364,000 geenrations only meant 3,640,000 years if the average age of giving birth is 10 years (tis is already very generous since many animals have the life span of only a few years). We have already found bones tat is more than 3 million years old (more than a few hundreds millions years old) Why is it difficult to say tat 364,000 generatin have not passedThere is simply no proof like what u said above altho we can't claim the positive or negative. It's just conjecture or postulation.
I think u need to know the original question. People claim tat the eye is too hard to be evolved out. The reply shows tat it is possible and in fact many living species now r still evolving their eye and many small steps toward the evolution of the eye we have is very possible and a mechanism is proposed. So wat is your question now ?There is no proof of evolution. It's just a theory
I can't believe tis !!! I have probably answer tis a few hundred times and yet people still get tis mistaken concept !!!! I tell u in short. Scientific committee has deemed evolution as a FACT.