The Eye and Evolution - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-05-2008, 09:43 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
The Eye and Evolution

This is similar to my flight post but it seems to pose an even greater problem to evolutionists.

Read the full article at
http://www.salvationbygrace.org/default.aspx
By Jim McClarty

"Lastly, for the moment, evolutionists are flummoxed by one simple paradox - the eye. Yes, the eye. A basic theory of Darwinism is "survival of the fit." In other words, weak animals die off and are eaten by other animals so that only the healthy animals live to reproduce. That creates strength and genetic vitality within a species. That's all well and good. So, the primary instinct that drives all animals is survival. And, evolution theory insists that the upward drive of multiple positive mutations was spurred on by the need to survive. In other words, we evolved from the basic cellular level, one mutation at a time, driven by the need to eat and procreate. Anything that does not aid that primary purpose of survival naturally falls away and does not develop - like our appendix.

Now, follow me. Early animals would have had no sense of sight, given their lack of eyes. Having no sight, they would not have known what sight was. They could not have conceived of something they had never experienced. It would have taken millions of years for something as complex as the eye to evolve through multiple upward mutations. But, why would it? We know that you do not get partial sight from a partial eye. You only get partial sight from a fully developed, under-operating eye. In other words, there's no reason for early creatures to have evolved an organ that would allow them to see when they had no idea what seeing was. Why would they? How would they know that sight would help them? And, even as it evolved, the earliest eyes would have been useless, so why did they continue developing? They would have fallen away in favor of more useful evolutionary growth. The development of the eye remains a puzzle for evolutionists. And, by the way, the eye remains one of the great proofs of creation. Only a God who understood what sight was would have gifted his creatures with the ability to see. Got it?"
Phillystang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 12:10 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Phillystang is offline  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:36 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
You pose similar questions but seem inable and/or unwilling to grasp recurring themes. Everytime you post these ID arguments, I can't help but think, "he really doesn't understand how genetics, let alone evolution, works." This is, of course, assuming you believe the quote.

First, as has been addressed ad nauseum, evolution is not an intelligent process persay but one that conforms to evolutionary pressures and benefits from certain mutations.

This simple prospect, in and of itself, makes the quote above silly. The guy is frankly ignorant even to the most basic of evolutionary theory. A basic understand of cellular mechanics and genetics would do him wonders.

I could go into a whole theoretical explanation for the evolution of the eye, but I think it's unnecessary as it's unprovable how exactly something evolved after the fact.

His gross misunderstandings of evolution aside, he makes another huge flaw. There is, indeed, partial sight. His head is stuck in a train of thought thinking that the current level of human sight is the only type of sight to have ever evolved. When, in fact, there are many different levels ranging from simply detecting the presence of light, to being able to notice variations in light, to being able to arrange them into a picture.
exlude is offline  
 
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:50 AM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ch...and/index.html - explains in a nutshell how the eye likely evolved.

I found this one kind of interesting too: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0414-lizard.html

You guys really gotta stop assuming evolution suddenly makes something pop out of nothing. You base your argument on the assumption that the eye just popped into existence during a single evolutionary phase of some animal. You don't even bother to actually figure out how the eye works in the first place... had you, had ANYONE pushing ID/Young Earth Creationism, you'd easily be able to trace the the modern eye back to the simplest photoreceptor cells.

I don't see how you figure this is a problem for evolutionists.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 12:22 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWolf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ch...and/index.html - explains in a nutshell how the eye likely evolved.

I found this one kind of interesting too: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0414-lizard.html

You guys really gotta stop assuming evolution suddenly makes something pop out of nothing. You base your argument on the assumption that the eye just popped into existence during a single evolutionary phase of some animal. You don't even bother to actually figure out how the eye works in the first place... had you, had ANYONE pushing ID/Young Earth Creationism, you'd easily be able to trace the the modern eye back to the simplest photoreceptor cells.

I don't see how you figure this is a problem for evolutionists.
That begs the question of the photoreceptor cells themselves.
Phillystang is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
I think you received some pretty good answers.
Time for a new thread.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 12:55 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
That begs the question of the photoreceptor cells themselves.
You are trying so insanely hard to nitpick, but you refuse to try to think these things out by yourself. Yes, you should wonder where the photoreceptor cell comes from...but at the same time you should be trying to answer your own question. If you want to take it to the next step, do some research that doesn't involve asking your preacher.

But the answer it for you, photosynthesis was one of the first ways cells derived energy. Photosynthesis uses cells called chloroplasts to "absorb" energy from certain light spectrums. Earlier versions of this chloroplast were likely your first type of photoreceptor.
exlude is offline  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 01:07 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Rowlett, TX
Posts: 1,463
Richard Dawkins explained it best here:

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Way Cool Jr is offline  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:09 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
You are trying so insanely hard to nitpick, but you refuse to try to think these things out by yourself. Yes, you should wonder where the photoreceptor cell comes from...but at the same time you should be trying to answer your own question. If you want to take it to the next step, do some research that doesn't involve asking your preacher.
I am, I am trying to think through how evolutionists believe things have happened. I didn't ask any preacher, I just came across the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
But the answer it for you, photosynthesis was one of the first ways cells derived energy. Photosynthesis uses cells called chloroplasts to "absorb" energy from certain light spectrums. Earlier versions of this chloroplast were likely your first type of photoreceptor.
Don't get angry but this again begs the question of how these cells originally detected outside energy sources and the need and ability to harness them. Are evolutionists ever reduced to say, "this is chance and we have no explanation for this"?
Phillystang is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:27 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Rowlett, TX
Posts: 1,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
I am, I am trying to think through how evolutionists believe things have happened. I didn't ask any preacher, I just came across the article.


Don't get angry but this again begs the question of how these cells originally detected outside energy sources and the need and ability to harness them. Are evolutionists ever reduced to say, "this is chance and we have no explanation for this"?
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Way Cool Jr is offline  
post #11 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:30 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Way Cool Jr
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Thanks for the explanation Mr. Dawkins
Your gaps are filled by "evolutionary processes"

To modify exlude's phrase

"If you want to take it to the next step, do some research that doesn't involve asking Mr. Dawkins."
Phillystang is offline  
post #12 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 02:32 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
I am, I am trying to think through how evolutionists believe things have happened. I didn't ask any preacher, I just came across the article.


Don't get angry but this again begs the question of how these cells originally detected outside energy sources and the need and ability to harness them. Are evolutionists ever reduced to say, "this is chance and we have no explanation for this"?
I think you have to go all the way back to the origin of organic materials or "soup" to get that kind of response. Since the initial creation of life evolution comes up with a pretty good scientific narrative (my words) on how life has developed.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #13 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 03:20 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Rowlett, TX
Posts: 1,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Thanks for the explanation Mr. Dawkins
Your gaps are filled by "evolutionary processes"

To modify exlude's phrase

"If you want to take it to the next step, do some research that doesn't involve asking Mr. Dawkins."
LOL
Way Cool Jr is offline  
post #14 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-07-2008, 05:59 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
I am, I am trying to think through how evolutionists believe things have happened. I didn't ask any preacher, I just came across the article.


Don't get angry but this again begs the question of how these cells originally detected outside energy sources and the need and ability to harness them. Are evolutionists ever reduced to say, "this is chance and we have no explanation for this"?
I may have addressed you incorrectly (angrily) and, for that, I apologize. If you are earnestly interested in the theoretical processes of evolution...I'll be glad to explain what I know and have learned. It's good to be a critic, but if you're trying to nitpick and poke holes in nuances of the theory...I'm out.

Anyway, there are several compounds that naturally occur...outside of life. All it would take is harnessing these chemicals into an inclusion body (an invagination of the cell wall/membrane) and there you have it...a primitive photoreceptive organelle.
exlude is offline  
post #15 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-10-2008, 08:53 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Someone stated that mutations cause progress and increase genetic data. This has never been proven. Rather, it's been disproven time and time again with mutation studies. Mutation can only occur for so long before survival is comprimised. The house fly mutation experiment is a perfect example of what happens when species mutate due to genetic data loss. It causes changes that do not allow the species to survive. One fly in one study was able to become resistant to cold and freezine, but it was never proven that the fly didn't already have that genetic data, which is the logical explanation.

Occam's Rasor states that the easiest solution to a problem is usually the correct solution. It is a much easier solution to say that flies had lots of genetic data and over the years, their environments didn't utilize this extra data, so most of it was lost. When the fly was put into a cold environment, it still had the genetic data to be resistant to cold, and it activated it and utilized it. It is not nearly as easy an explanation to say that the fly mutated and magically created this ability to resist cold, especially considering the fly should not have had the ability to figure out what was necessary to fend off cold. The fly's DNA is like programming, not a programmer. There's no intelligence IN the DNA. It is just a sign of an intelligent programmer. That's all.

Occam's Rasor would also take the easier choice of Creation over Evolution, because it is the more simple, easy explanation. Evolution is super complicated and millions of years and TONS of chance and chaos turning into order, etc. Creation states that order was created instantly by an intelligent being, and all of the genetic data was existent to begin with. Over time, the environment changed, and some of the genetic data was not utilized, and eventually it was lost (which is what mutation is). Creation, when properly understood, always makes more sense and is much more simple and scientific than evolution ever hoped to be.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-10-2008, 09:56 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
Someone stated that mutations cause progress and increase genetic data. This has never been proven. Rather, it's been disproven time and time again with mutation studies. Mutation can only occur for so long before survival is comprimised. The house fly mutation experiment is a perfect example of what happens when species mutate due to genetic data loss. It causes changes that do not allow the species to survive. One fly in one study was able to become resistant to cold and freezine, but it was never proven that the fly didn't already have that genetic data, which is the logical explanation.

Occam's Rasor states that the easiest solution to a problem is usually the correct solution. It is a much easier solution to say that flies had lots of genetic data and over the years, their environments didn't utilize this extra data, so most of it was lost. When the fly was put into a cold environment, it still had the genetic data to be resistant to cold, and it activated it and utilized it. It is not nearly as easy an explanation to say that the fly mutated and magically created this ability to resist cold, especially considering the fly should not have had the ability to figure out what was necessary to fend off cold. The fly's DNA is like programming, not a programmer. There's no intelligence IN the DNA. It is just a sign of an intelligent programmer. That's all.

Occam's Rasor would also take the easier choice of Creation over Evolution, because it is the more simple, easy explanation. Evolution is super complicated and millions of years and TONS of chance and chaos turning into order, etc. Creation states that order was created instantly by an intelligent being, and all of the genetic data was existent to begin with. Over time, the environment changed, and some of the genetic data was not utilized, and eventually it was lost (which is what mutation is). Creation, when properly understood, always makes more sense and is much more simple and scientific than evolution ever hoped to be.
You might what to rethink your example and usage of Occam's razor.

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Occam's razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."


For example, atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.

Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #17 of 17 (permalink) Old 01-10-2008, 11:56 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
Someone stated that mutations cause progress and increase genetic data. This has never been proven.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. One might say that they don't believe in the observed examples of speciation. But to say that microevolution (aka adaptation) doesn't occur is just silly (which is what you just said). Mutations (including genetic substitutions, insertions, and deletions) can all cause progress (adaptation). Genetic substitutions and insertions can both increase genetic data (adding another nucleotide basepair would be an instant increase in genetic data).

Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
Occam's Rasor states that the easiest solution to a problem is usually the correct solution. It is a much easier solution to say that flies had lots of genetic data and over the years, their environments didn't utilize this extra data, so most of it was lost. When the fly was put into a cold environment, it still had the genetic data to be resistant to cold, and it activated it and utilized it. It is not nearly as easy an explanation to say that the fly mutated and magically created this ability to resist cold, especially considering the fly should not have had the ability to figure out what was necessary to fend off cold. The fly's DNA is like programming, not a programmer. There's no intelligence IN the DNA. It is just a sign of an intelligent programmer. That's all.
Well, as Jones said...you got Occam's wrong. But, nevertheless, your argument is silly. Just because someone said that a certain process should be done in a certain way doesn't make it true. Yes, all other things equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best. But all things aren't equal as many Creationists wish to ignore scientific findings.
exlude is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome