8
   

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

 
 
kYRANI
 
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 09:29 am
We do not see with the eyes but with information gathered by the eyes and processed in the brain /mind. An organism can't make use of a mutation that gives it sensory information as for instance photosensitive cells as to have an advantage over another organism without that mutation if it has not already developed a brain with the capacity to process that information. The brain has to have developed first in anticipation of the eye developing. I cannot see how this is possible by natural selection. What do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 8 • Views: 14,086 • Replies: 160

 
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:16 am
I think you're a stealth creationist, and therefore not worth the time of day.
kYRANI
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:16 pm
@Setanta,
Stealth???? No way! I'm a scientist and I consider the evidence. I am not a Christian or any other particular religion but I still think that creationism maybe the real deal.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:29 pm
@kYRANI,
Oh yeah? What's your scientific evidence for that? What's your thesis which explains all the data, is successfully predictive and can stand up to falsification? What kind of scientist are you? Astrologer?
kYRANI
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:38 pm
@Setanta,
For the record I am an industrial chemist or was I am now retired and a human rights activist these days. As for the evidence.. it is up to those who support evolutionary theory to show how can a sense organ such as the eye evolve when an organism needs to have developed a brain first in anticipation for an eye to subsequently develop. I can't see any evidence to say it could have evolved so I am asking those who claim evolution to show me their evidence. How can any sensory organ evolve, because it necessarily must be useful to an organism to evolve and develop. No eye can develop if there is no way an organism can use it without a brain. So if your that sure of yourself tell me how? How can you get the cart going without the horse? Either a brain has develop with the capability of utilizing the sensory information that an eye would provide before the eye develops or the eye develops and can't be used until the brain develops and both cases are not possible via natural selection. You provide the evidence.. where is it?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:49 pm
@kYRANI,
Because as a bucket chemist, you are fully qualified to judge the work of evolutionary biologists.....
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:10 pm
Quote:
Evolution of the Eye
(PBS.org, WGBH Educational Foundation, Evolution Library)

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. 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.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
kYRANI
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:12 pm
@DrewDad,
Hey man I'm humble, I don't know everything about the subject but I can reason. You say evolution then just tell me what you base yourself on? Where is the evidence? Why do you need to resort to name calling? Just give me your evidence. Let's hear it. How can an eye evolve? Under what sort of natural selection? If you're an evolutionary biologist then you surely know the basics. We don't see with the eyes, we see with information gathered by the eyes and processed in the brain and perceived in the mind, whatever the mind is! The reality is that evolutionist talk about how a mutation might make a cell photosensitive and then concave and then develop lens etc but they fail to tell the ignorant public that all that is useless without a brain that can use and interpret the information so as to make it useful. You can sell evolutionary theory to those who are scientifically illiterate but not to me.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:14 pm
@kYRANI,
No, it is up to those who advance extraordinary claims to support them. If a "creation" occurred, who or what effected the creation? Who or what created that creator? If you answer is that the creator is eternal, i opt for entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum--just stipulate that the cosmos itself is eternal, and move on from there.
kYRANI
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:17 pm
@wandeljw,
You give the standard explanation alright but without a brain the photosensitive spot can't be used. So the organism must have develop a brain with the capability to receive, interpret and make use of the sensory info in order to see! And that brain function had to develop in anticipation of the photosensitive spot happening. It's garbage man. There is no natural selection that can develop such a brain capability in anticipation of a subsequent development by natural selection. The development you describe doesn't take into account that a brain is necessary.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:23 pm
@kYRANI,
Name calling?

You mean bucket chemist? Since that's what the chemical engineering folks tend to call themselves, then I wonder if you're really what you claim to be.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:24 pm
@kYRANI,
Sensory organs started with very simply mechanisms and connections.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:24 pm
@kYRANI,
So tell me, where did your invisible sky friend come from?
0 Replies
 
kYRANI
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:32 pm
@Setanta,
Yeah let's put the evidence on the table and not hide it away. There is clear evidence, which scientists have made efforts to hide as it appears to me and that evidence points to a non-physical reality underpinning this physical reality. That evidence is to be found in drug trials no less. People in relationship are able to discern what another person knows, if it is of concern to them. So for instance a patient in a single blinded drug trial gets to know, without having been told or given any sensory information, what the doctor knows, ie whether they were given a drug or a blank, a dummy drug. To get rid of this problem they now use double blinds. What they have done is to relationally distance the two parties to get rid of ESP.. oh yes that ha, ha, ha ESP that they claim doesn't exist. There is no way, by any physical means that one person can know what another person knows if all thoughts and thinking is generated in their brain. And there is no brain energy that can go out of one brain and into another, and certainly not when they are not even in the same location. The only way that extra sensory perception can be explained is if we consider that there is a non-physical realm that underpins this physical realm. This does not and is not in itself enough to prove God but it does go part way to prove that there is intelligence within a realm that is outside what we know. Indeed once you can appreciate this then you can explain the horizon problem in astro physics, the phenomenon of non-locality and much more. Indeed in modern physics we know that particles don't exist as we imagine them but they come in and out of existence all the time, through what physicists call "back stage". The particle is undefined and can only be defined when it appears again. If we take all of the evidence then the picture is very different and just as particles come into being so too there may well be some parallel to the schrodinger equation that is physically expressed as DNA that gives rise to the biological array we see around us. Obviously we don't just pop into being but we are also not simply material only.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:39 pm
@kYRANI,
Quote:
You give the standard explanation alright but without a brain the photosensitive spot can't be used.

That's a pretty silly argument. Lots of plants are capable of following the sun. Do they have brains?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:42 pm
@kYRANI,
What's the evidence for the claims you're making? Can you cite these alleged studies clearly showing that the authors came to these conclusions? You haven't produced a scrap of credible evidence to demonstrate the existance of any god.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:44 pm
@kYRANI,
Quote:
People in relationship are able to discern what another person knows, if it is of concern to them. So for instance a patient in a single blinded drug trial gets to know, without having been told or given any sensory information, what the doctor knows, ie whether they were given a drug or a blank, a dummy drug. To get rid of this problem they now use double blinds. What they have done is to relationally distance the two parties to get rid of ESP..

If ESP exists then a double blind would be no more effective than a single blind.
People can read body language and other clues which have nothing to do with ESP. It doesn't take ESP to tell if someone is sad/happy. Mothers don't need ESP to tell when their children are lying. It's all about reading subtle clues about how the person is acting.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:46 pm
@kYRANI,
kYRANI wrote:
People in relationship are able to discern what another person knows, if it is of concern to them. So for instance a patient in a single blinded drug trial gets to know, without having been told or given any sensory information, what the doctor knows, ie whether they were given a drug or a blank, a dummy drug. To get rid of this problem they now use double blinds.

lol.

That's not why they use double-blind trials.

They use double-blind trials to keep the doctor from skewing the results.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:48 pm
@kYRANI,
kYRANI wrote:

We do not see with the eyes but with information gathered by the eyes and processed in the brain /mind. An organism can't make use of a mutation that gives it sensory information as for instance photosensitive cells as to have an advantage over another organism without that mutation if it has not already developed a brain with the capacity to process that information. The brain has to have developed first in anticipation of the eye developing. I cannot see how this is possible by natural selection. What do you think?

The brain adapts to new sensory inputs:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=device-lets-blind-see-with-tongues

Neuroplasticity!
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:48 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
therefore not worth the time of day.

Typical creationist with only a passing (and fundamentally flawed) understanding of how science works.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/09/2019 at 04:07:32