Do complex life-forms in this universe automatically develop a pair of eyes?

@steffen phil,

to the OP, No.
but
Evolutionary convergence implies that complex life forms develop abilities and sensory perceptual abilities that improve procreation and survival in their enviroment and that certain abilities have developed independently multiple times (hearing,sight, locomotion, legs, fins, etc.).

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;126312 wrote:

And I STILL say that you can't apply the theory of natural selection to the question of the origin of life, because before it was alive, there was nothing to select.

Sure there was.

For example there is a certain beach in England where small pepples are found at one end and large rocks found at the other.

Wave action within the shape of the particular beach "selects" according to size of rock.

If you can apply a naturally selective process to sorting rocks on a beach why not self-replicating polymers?

As for relatively simple self-replicating polymers the selective agents could be multifarious.

Things like:

Speed of self-replication
Ability to bond with phospholipid layer
Ability to create symbiotic enzyme
Size of molecule

And so on - would all affect the ability of the self-replicating polymer to exist and replicate more copies of itself within the primordial soup.

This would feasably lead to a primitive form of 'evolution by natural selection' - simply because the more successful polymers begin to dominate the environment to the detriment of less successful models.

What action might have caused this if not natural selection?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

We can speculate as much as we like but the reality is we have never succeeded in creating life that has the same ability that life had when it first appeared on earth. Simple paterns of life, in nature have the ability to become complex and find answers to the most difficult of problems, so why not new life coming from that simple law of nature. I often wonder after so many millions of years why we do not find life reoccurring again and again in its basic format, should that be telling us something?

When people say nature gives other creatures more than two eyes , do they realise that they loose so much by that ability? I read that for man to have three arms his head would need to be four times bigger to cope with the complexities of coordinating three arms and hands. We are the pinnacle of success and to try changing us for the better would be nit picking at the best. Two eyes facing forward is the best it gets.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;126399 wrote:

We can speculate as much as we like but the reality is we have never succeeded in creating life that has the same ability that life had when it first appeared on earth.

I think scientists are pretty close now. What's the betting that the "but life has never been created in a lab" objection will be moot soon enough?

Quote:

I often wonder after so many millions of years why we do not find life reoccurring again and again in its basic format, should that be telling us something?

It probably has on occasion, but it would have been quickly gobbled up - such protolife is completely defenceless in an area where life is already established.

Quote:

We are the pinnacle of success and to try changing us for the better would be nit picking at the best. Two eyes facing forward is the best it gets.

Depends what you call success. Time on planet - we're relative newcomers. Biomass - grass aces us. Number - we're piffling compared to ants.

When we talk of success we just laud our adapability and ability to survive in different environments, or maybe cite our apparently singlualr conciousnesses.

But they aren't things of any intrinsic worth.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

When or if we do create life as we know it, Jim. I will applaud their ability.

I cant imagine anything in creation , even ants, having the same abilities and success as humans. Ants are still involved in evolutionary battles for survival, not even they have overcome their enemies advances. They need to have varied evolutionary inventions to handle each aspect of the community. Soldier , workers, flying adventurers, queens . We are all of them and more in one compact ability. Give me a better invention than the human that can fulfill as many objectives?

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Sorry Dave I have a real conceptual problem with where you're coming from. The fact that rocks get sorted into patterns has no bearing on the intricacies involved in the coming together of life. You have complete confidence that life is just something that spontaneously occurred, and sooner or later we'll work out the details, and it'll be right. Again I say, I am not a creationist or fundamentalist or even Christian, but I am never going to buy it. But there's no point arguing it as I am never going to convince you, and you have a snowflakes of convincing me. And besides, it is off the point of the OP.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;126523 wrote:

You have complete confidence that life is just something that spontaneously occurred...

Actually - you had complete confidence that - in your own words - "scientifically inclined types" wouldn't examine the origins of life "without getting touchy about it".

I think that's piffle - because of this very field of research.
I provided you with a precis about abiogenesis - not because I have "complete confidence" in it (though I think it's the best explanation there is, for sure) - but to demonstrate that the apparent assertion that no investigation into it occured was utterly baseless - as it is. Scientists are examining the very thing you claimed they wouldn't due to "touchiness" - QED.

The research may have shortcomings - though I still don't see why a journalistic proponent's south-east english accent has to do with it - can you explain why that's an issue for my edification please?

Quote:

The fact that rocks get sorted into patterns has no bearing on the intricacies involved in the coming together of life.

Well that's not really apparent.

It is merely an example of a simple selective pressure - occuring in nature - to illustrate that not all processes of natural selection act on living matter.

Extrapolate up (or down) to the things that act of polymers.

It's really just posited as counter to the assertion that natural selection only happens when life is about.

That's not technically true.

Quote:

Again I say, I am not a creationist or fundamentalist or even Christian, but I am never going to buy it.

Your dogmatism is up to you really. I'd rather learn for myself what the different arguments are and tend towards the better ones.

In doing so I'd have to be honest about such arguments - and not dismiss them along the lines of "such and such people won't look at such a thing without getting touchy" - when actually its a field of study of some intricacy and dividend (increasingly so).

It's nothing to do with religion or anti-religion insofar as I reckon it - because if you favour a supernatural first cause in your worldveiw it would be perfectly reasonable to assume this is how he did it. That's not my bag personally - but why abiogenesis would be incompatible with faith is beyond me.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Thanks Dave, well explained. You are giving me a lot of grounds for thought, I will gather my wits and I think make another post on the topic, I really don't want to hijack the OP. But this will be 8 hours away, I have a lot of work to do between now and then.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

I have put some further comments on abiogenisis on my blogif anyone is interested.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;126278 wrote:

Could have, but what if 'two' are optimal - not because 'the grand designer' chose that number, but because that number is the one most likely to emerge from the many possibilities? ...

If having two eyes is most likely to emerge, then it would probably be what would emerge on most planets with life with eyes, but likely not all. Also, your use of the word "optimal" is not normal, as being the most likely to occur by chance is not what that word normally means. By the usual meaning of the term, it would appear to be more optimal for humans to not have appendixes, because they seem to be more potentially detrimental than helpful, but in fact people do tend to have them. Such considerations, by the way, tend to suggest that if humans were designed, the designer was incompetent. What is especially ironic and amusing is that creationists have often used the eye as an example of something that is supposed to show design and purpose, yet the human eye is extremely unreliable, so that most of them fail to work very well (which explains why most people use glasses, contact lenses, or corrective surgery), which surely tells us quite a bit about the abilities of any potential designer. But that is getting us off topic.

1 Reply

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;126763 wrote:

If having two eyes is most likely to emerge, then it would probably be what would emerge on most planets with life with eyes, but likely not all. Also, your use of the word "optimal" is not normal, as being the most likely to occur by chance is not what that word normally means.

(my emphasis)

Thanks. I am interested in the role of 'chance' in this dialog. Consider this scenario - what if there is some underlying tendency for organisms for form in certain types of ways - for example, having two eyes - due to underlying constraints or tendencies which dictate the number of possible outcomes. I mean, the guys who design the Star Wars critters always imagine a creatures with all kinds of different facial configurations. But what if the configuration occurs on some level other than that dictated by adaptive necessity?

Consider the Burgess Shales and the Camrbian Explosion. Wikipedia notes that

Quote:

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

One of these debates centres around the notion of causality, morphology and chance. Darwinian theory really only proceeds on the basis of observing changes in allelle frequency caused by selection pressure. But what if there is another factor, that is, the likelihood of certain forms to emerge, from which the selection is made? This means that although chance plays a role, it is constrained by the likelihood of certain specific forms.

This is also supported by the observation that the Cambrian explosion gave rise to number of unique-looking species unlike anything we see today, which actually did not survive and adapt. Almost like nature is improvising with possibilities, against which adapative necessity 'calls the winners'.

This would be very close to what traditional philosophy describes as a 'formal cause', as distinct from the 'efficient' and 'proximate' causes which are described by adaptive necessity.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Eyes seem too difficult to have evolved out of random evolution, to me it is a case of irreducible complexity.

How did the eye and the nose come to an agreement to drill a hole through the nasal passage so that a tear duct be formed that benefits both eye and nose

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;126925 wrote:

Eyes seem too difficult to have evolved out of random evolution, to me it is a case of irreducible complexity.

How did the eye and the nose come to an agreement to drill a hole through the nasal passage so that a tear duct be formed that benefits both eye and nose

Alan you really don't want to know the answer to this. Why am I saying that? Because you have presented this argument about three times from my own memory, and responses have been provided for you, but here you are stating it again.

When you talk about the eye, what animal are you referring to? The eye in general has a LOT of variations with the same principal purpose being similar. Humans are far down the evolutionary chain, so you CAN NOT use the human eye as an example of how such a thing could arise naturally. Why? Because it is at the end of the chain of a series of changes. Although it did naturally happen, it is a very bad place to begin your journey to understand how the eye could develop. You have to go back, a long way back to where and when the eye would most likely have developed and investigate from there.

Other than what I just stated, I am not going to revisit all the elements, biology and chemistry involved in answering this question which you could easily look up on your own.

It is dishonest to say the eye is irreducible complexity.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;126928 wrote:

Alan you really don't want to know the answer to this. Why am I saying that? Because you have presented this argument about three times from my own memory, and responses have been provided for you, but here you are stating it again.

When you talk about the eye, what animal are you referring to? The eye in general has a LOT of variations with the same principal purpose being similar. Humans are far down the evolutionary chain, so you CAN NOT use the human eye as an example of how such a thing could arise naturally. Why? Because it is at the end of the chain of a series of changes. Although it did naturally happen, it is a very bad place to begin your journey to understand how the eye could develop. You have to go back, a long way back to where and when the eye would most likely have developed and investigate from there.

Other than what I just stated, I am not going to revisit all the elements, biology and chemistry involved in answering this question which you could easily look up on your own.

It is dishonest to say the eye is irreducible complexity.

I agree I have posed the concept of the eye and irreducible complexity But I have yet to read a response that satisfied me

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

steffen #1

"eyes" as of such has many stages of evolution, some plants has primitive parabolic photosensetive receptors, resulting in directional determenation of light source. Where human eyes has both color and focusing abilities. Some animals has higher/different abilities.

As some speak of cave anmals who are blind and lost sight, but initially had sight.

I do belive the sight and complexebilities are a "harmonic", but not a nessesty.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Not in the dark...Look at cave animals..

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Quote:

Not in the dark...Look at cave animals..

Hexhammer wrote:

Quote:

steffen #1
"eyes" as of such has many stages of evolution, some plants has primitive parabolic photosensetive receptors, resulting in directional determenation of light source. Where human eyes has both color and focusing abilities. Some animals has higher/different abilities.
As some speak of cave anmals who are blind and lost sight, but initially had sight.
I do belive the sight and complexebilities are a "harmonic", but not a nessesty.

Your points have been discussed elaborately in this thread. If you read it you will understand that there is no rational argument possible to rebut the fact that a pair of visual organs will always be developed on all the planets in this universe if life forms reach a comparable complexity as here on earth. There are no vertebrates or even any insects without a pair of eyes and this fact is based on pure logic. Some cave-vertebrates are blind, but they have developed from the light-creatures and their eyes are still existent. There are compound eyes and spiders have some extra-eyes. But in the end they all have a pair of eyes.

There are many other characteristics that would always develop again, such as the tail-motion of water-animals and pairs of legs for those on land. ( there are no three- or five leg animals, and the reason for that is also a logical one)

When you say harmonic but not nessesty, that is right, but for what reason should natures life-forms abandon the characteristics that are most useful / harmonic?
The development of a pair of eyes is based on nothing but pure logic on a sunlit planet. I wonder how this can be doubted. Seems like most scientists are afraid they could be linked to creationists or other absurd /illogical nonsens and in the consequence they let themselves indirectly be restricted due to that. Such is not necessary, as the described logic by itself is not at all some kind of proof for any "creator".

BTW: There are many other and much deeper logics to be found in the processes of free nature. Not having understood these basics of life but already starting to fumble around in the internals of the organisms to design funny glow-fish and super-crops, that is like a toddler playing around with a complex easy-to-trigger bomb.

_____________________
www.basicrule.info

2 Replies

@steffen phil,

steffen;139979 wrote:

for what reason should natures life-forms abandon the characteristics that are most useful / harmonic?
The development of a pair of eyes is based on nothing but pure logic on a sunlit planet. I wonder how this can be doubted. Seems like most scientists are afraid they could be linked to creationists or other absurd /illogical nonsens and in the consequence they let themselves indirectly be restricted due to that. Such is not necessary, as the described logic by itself is not at all some kind of proof for any "creator".

Your assumptions are too absolute, siencetist are afraid of making such mistakes.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html

Solve this, if you have greater logic.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Quote:

Your assumptions are too absolute, siencetist are afraid of making such mistakes.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/loung...ter-logic.html

Solve this, if you have greater logic.

To be honest I do not really understand your puzzle. The garbage man might have been poisoned due to his job, and now his body overreacts on chemicals?

Anyway, try to find any reasonable solution why life-forms as complex as here on earth should not develop eyes for example or tail motion when in the water. The free evolution will always find these major forms under circumstances as here on earth.

The scientists btw work with a lot of assumptions on an all day basis. And if there are no good scientists working on such thinks as the discussed matter, there will be no knowledge.
Do we know what gravity really is? Anyway we can see it / feel the results, so we trust the regarding theories. If there were no Einsteins and Newtons we might still discuss about if the planets in the orbit are sometimes flat like discs. Now, at least, we understand they are all round like balls and nobody seriousely doubts it.

__________________
www.basicrule.info

1 Reply

@steffen phil,

steffen;140210 wrote:

To be honest I do not really understand your puzzle. The garbage man might have been poisoned due to his job, and now his body overreacts on chemicals?

There are 3 points that needs to be alterd/questioned.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][QUOTE=steffen;140210]Anyway, try to find any reasonable solution why life-forms as complex as here on earth should not develop eyes for example or tail motion when in the water. The free evolution will always find these major forms under circumstances as here on earth.
[/QUOTE]Pinguins does not have this tail swagging thing, but are excelent swimmers.

[QUOTE=steffen;140210]The scientists btw work with a lot of assumptions on an all day basis. And if there are no good scientists working on such thinks as the discussed matter, there will be no knowledge.
Do we know what gravity really is? Anyway we can see it / feel the results, so we trust the regarding theories. If there were no Einsteins and Newtons we might still discuss about if the planets in the orbit are sometimes flat like discs. Now, at least, we understand they are all round like balls and nobody seriousely doubts it.[/QUOTE]Newton surely discoverd gravity, but didn't explain it satisfyingly, with his thesis it does not explain the orbit of Mercury, only Einstein did a more satisfying explenation.

0 Replies

Do complex life-forms in this universe automatically develop a pair of eyes?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know