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

Some questions really do have simple answers...

NO, it isn't possible.

An article occasionally seen on conservative forums:



The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:



You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

• It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
  
  
  
  
• PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
  
  
• PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
  
  
• PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
  
  
• For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
  

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:



Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

How sight is generated is not understood. But I am not claiming this nor the lack of scientific understanding at this present time as any evidence. Clearly understood is that the brain takes in information through the nerves cells from the body and processes that information. If a person has a damaged brain they suffer some disability. It is not rocket science. What I am saying is that TWO vastly different processes need to be coincident and useful the one to the other before any individual can either develop an eye. We don't need to understand in full what is happening in the brain to know the obvious that the eye sends signal to the brain and the brain somehow processes those signals to give sight. A person with brain damage in the areas associated with sight can't see even though there is no damage to their eyes and a person whose eyes are damaged can't see even though their brain is unharmed. TWO are needed that is known to medical science. I am not resting any arguments on unknowns or lack of understanding. Lame are all those evolutionists who can't provide the evidence that the eye can develop by natural selection. And if you are going to name call then get it right. Firstly I am not a chemical engineer, they are bucket chemists by their own affirmations. I am an analytical chemist and for us in this field even a drop is heaps. We deal in parts per million or better accuracy. And as for the dude, I take it you are saying a stylish and over confident man. I am a woman! And I am confident because I can understand the science. I am not an evolutionary biologist but one doesn't need to be to see basic flaws in the arguments.

The evidence of ESP is in the very fact that those taking the drugs show a placebo effect!What has happened is that they have perceived insightfully NOT THROUGH SENSORY MEANS that they have been given the drugs by the research doctor, to whom they are related through a one to one interaction, and not the blanks. Knowing they have a drug helps them believe that they will get well and it is that belief that can make the difference. The people with the blanks would also know that they have been given a blank so don't have any reason to believe that they could get well by what they are given. In the double blind there is no such advantage of one group over the other. The odds are even.

I appreciate that a lot of creationists are out of the religious circles and most are Christian. I am not quoting any religious grounds and I am not a Christian. I do not believe that Jesus is god. My questions about Darwinian or any other evolutionary theory are based on the fact that I can't see that there are valid scientific grounds. You people resort to name calling and other stupid suggestions and not science. You don't have the guts to debate.

And you know this how?

Science makes no claims to understand fully the functions of the brain.
You could read some of Oliver Sacks' work.

Your spiel about name calling is a straw man, I never called you any names.
The reference "dude" was a parody of your earlier "hey man" responses.
I made no reference at all to your field of study, and I couldn't care less.

Read up on jellyfish, cave fish, and some of Oliver Sacks' work, then come back and tell us again how certain you are about the relationship of the brain to sensory organs.

You have not shown any flaws in evolutionary biology. You have created idiosyncratic criteria and expect others to share your idiosyncracies.

Filibustering is not honest debate.

And you conveniently skip over the posts that don't resort to name calling and bring up scientific/medical points.

http://able2know.org/topic/178228-2#post-4751543

I am skeptical that you are who you claim to be. First of all you are making a few presuppositions about the eye and if you really were who you claim to be, you would know that these are the first things you need to avoid or your results will be faulty. So either one, you are not who you claim to be, or two, your instructor has failed to provide you with the necessary tools to do your work. Let me explain further if it is not clear to you by now.

Your presupposition about the eye is indirectly stating that either the brain must be at a point to allow the eye to function or that the eye must be simplistic enough that the brain can process the information. Do you see your error yet? If not let me continue.

Let me use the human brain and human eye as an example to point out your mistake.

1. Is the human brain more capable than the information the eye provides?

What does that mean? Well it is asking if the human brain is capable of handling more information than what the human eye currently provides.

2. Is the human brain limited to only what the information the human eye provides?

What does that mean? Is the human brain only capable enough to process the information the human eye provides and if the human eye were more complex or had additional information, the human brain simply is not able to process this information?

3. Is the human brain less than capable to process the information of the human eye?

What does that mean? Does the human eye actually provide far more information than the human brain processes?

If you are not aware yet to see your error, I might as well continue.

If 1. is true it means the human eye could technically evolve more because the human brain is capable of processing additional information the new version might provide.

If 2. is true it means the human brain is not capable of any additional information processing but this does not mean that the eye couldn't continue to evolve or provide additional information.

If 3. is true it is similar to 2 but the human brain is incapable of processing any additional information that the eye could be providing.

You know what all three have in common before I examine their false cases?

A. Infrared light... Our brains do not process infrared light yet our eyes do absorb it. Interesting how the eye is capable of something that our brains are not. Could this be that the eye is independent from the brain?

I'll continue.

If 1. is false we actually run into the same problem as 2. and 3. Which means the eye could technically provide far more information than the brain can process but this does not limit it from evolving or providing additional information. The only thing that need happen is the brain developing the ability to process these other forms of information.

No need to falsify 2. 0r 3. because they have already been falsified.

So in conclusion, as you can see, the brain does NOT need to evolve before the eye. The eye can simply evolve independently to the brain, but it is the brain that ultimately can evolve to utilize additional information. ie. the ability of the human brain to process the infrared.

You can return to your creationist classroom where you conduct your "evolutionary biology" now.

You most likely read the first paragraph of that item I posted and stopped reading. The item contains several very well reasoned arguments against both major flavors of macroevolution and in no way is based on any sort of religious ideology.

Your arguments are sound but for a brain that already exists and an eye that already exists. You are talking about further development or evolution. I am not talking about that. I am saying that given we start from scratch, ie no brain existing and no eye existing, I do not see any way that these can evolve by natural selection. Someone earlier said that a mutation can happen and continue to be in the organism and only become useful later. Yes indeed but we are not talking about one or two mutations we are talking about the development of two separate organs, although not totally sepaate because the optic nerve and the retina are directly linked to the brain and some claim them a part of the brain. However the function of the eye and the processes that bring sight into being, even though we don't understand them are two separate things and the one needs the other. I am not basing anything I am saying on any religious ideology. I do not see the science that prove the matter in favour of evolution. However given that there is evidence of a non-physical realm in the evidence one can see of ESP then there is more to the story that Darwinian Theory doesn't account for. Darwin has based himsef on a materialism only reality.

I guess we can leave gunga and Kyrani to congratulate each other on how smart they are.

Nothing to see here folks.

You're implying Gunga is arguing the case FOR evolution? Ha, You're a cruel man

You mean he was following the scientific process when developing his theories... god forbid.

You might want to check out Rupert Sheldrake's website i.e.

http://www.sheldrake.org

Sheldrake is a former director of studies for cell biology at Cambridge University who has used good experimental design and statistical methods to show to a statistical certainty that some of the things we normally term 'paranormal' are real.

And as hard as it is for evolutionites to explain things like brains, eyes, or flight feathers, explaining paranormal things is a couple of orders of magnitude harder.

The brain evolved to processes nerve impulses not light. So it could be argued that it is a general tool (in this respect) for processing nerve impulses. If light can generate a nerve impulse then the brain produces an image. If there is something else e.g. memories then the brain processes these nerve impulses and produces an image (no light needed).

So the brain is a general tool for processing nerve impulses (in this respect) whether that is caused by light, sound, memories etc... This seems reasonable to me and it means the brain is ready to processes any nerve impulses it comes across. Some could be advantageous to a species and that would explain evolution.

The scientific method does not presuppose that there is only materialism. The scientific method merely states a procedure for doing science.

Science is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism. What do you mean by "materialism"?

By materialism here is meant the material or physical aspects. If you can't see it and you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. In this way they rule out things like ESP.

Then your previous post: isn't quite accurate.

Because Science does more than simply state a procedure. It also makes certain assumptions, namely, Naturalism (or as you are using the term vaguely; materialism) as a basis in which to contain the methodology of science.

Without Methodological Naturalism as a condition of science, the whole scientific method becomes "unbounded" and ineffective.