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

It's not ESP. I suggest you look at the "Clever Hans" trials. Same thing happens with human experimenters who have knowledge of what's being tested for, it's very small sensory cues neither the experimenter nor the testee is actually consciously aware of, but are there.

You're looking WAY too high on the evolutionary ladder when you think there is no nervous system dealing with sensory input before eyes came along. You can poke a single-celled organism with no nervous system and it will move away from the poking point. Sensory input spurs reaction WAY down the evolutionary tree, and that's what the brain-eye interaction is a far later stage of.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Call it naturalism if you like, the idea that there is only dead matter and nothing else. I don't agree with that and there is scientific evidence of a non-physical or non-naturalistic realm but scientists are explaining it away because they don't like what they can't see and /or can't measure. There is still a problem with the scientific method and a serious one. We can only ever observe and make measurements from a relative frame of reference. This means we cannot stand outside of nature and make observation and measurement, we cannot be independent observers. When ever we make observation or measurements we fundamentally affect that that we seek to observe and measure. We also collect data but we have to make sense of it and as we conduction our discussion and deductions with the use of the ego or personal self, we do so with a bias.
I also want to say that I am still checking out the squid and the cave fish but I don't think they contradict what I am saying. Squid don't have brains but they still have a major nerve system so there is still the problem of processing of visual information. Cave fish that are blind and presumably evolved to become blind can have their sight "ressurrected" by implanting a sighted fish's lens in the eye socket at the embryonic stage so that when they reach maturity they are sighted. There is full development of the eyes. This smacks of design and not evolution. I strongly suspect that there is some conditions in the non-physical realm (call it the mind, call it the spirit realm, call it "backstage" as physicists are saying) in which there are conditions which may give rise to the physical phenomenon of the genetic code. If this is the case then it explains why all species are related to some extent and really to an extraordinarily largeish extent. As for the Oliver guy I don't see that he has anything that can be of value. Psychiatrists typically hold to theories for which they try and find evidence. That is not science.

3 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

I don't agree with that and there is scientific evidence of a non-physical or non-naturalistic realm but scientists are explaining it away because they don't like what they can't see and /or can't measure.

You consistently makes such claims, but provide no evidence. You acknowledge yourself that this "realm" cannot be seen or measured, in which case there is not scientific evidence for it. You contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. You cannot assert that there is scientific evidence for something, for anything, while at the same time denying that there is any naturalistic evidence for it, because that is not science.

1 Reply

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

Call it naturalism if you like, the idea that there is only dead matter and nothing else.

That's not what Naturalism is or says. I think you need to do a bit of reading on methodological naturalism to get a better idea of what it is.

kYRANI wrote:

I don't agree with that and there is scientific evidence of a non-physical or non-naturalistic realm but scientists are explaining it away because they don't like what they can't see and /or can't measure.

Can you be more specific. I don't know what you are referring to with that statement.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

Quote:

I also want to say that I am still checking out the squid and the cave fish but I don't think they contradict what I am saying. Squid don't have brains but they still have a major nerve system so there is still the problem of processing of visual information. Cave fish that are blind and presumably evolved to become blind can have their sight "ressurrected" by implanting a sighted fish's lens in the eye socket at the embryonic stage so that when they reach maturity they are sighted. There is full development of the eyes. This smacks of design and not evolution. I strongly suspect that there is some conditions in the non-physical realm (call it the mind, call it the spirit realm, call it "backstage" as physicists are saying) in which there are conditions which may give rise to the physical phenomenon of the genetic code. If this is the case then it explains why all species are related to some extent and really to an extraordinarily largeish extent. As for the Oliver guy I don't see that he has anything that can be of value. Psychiatrists typically hold to theories for which they try and find evidence. That is not science.

It was Jellyfish I mentioned, not Squid, Squid actually do have brains. No matter, as you've simply demonstrated how little attention you actually pay.
Your own cave fish operation demonstrates one of the points intended, the brain learns how to use sense organs such as the eye. Try installing that lens in the eye of a mature cave fish and see how different the results.
That's the area where Oliver Sacks comes in, his case histories clearly demonstrate this sort of thing.

Quote:

typically hold to theories for which they try and find evidence. That is not science.

Which is exactly what you are doing here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

We can't see the non-physical realm and we can't measure it either however there is evidence in its existence in the phenomenon of ESP inside of relationship. At present in the investigation of ESP the biomedical scientissts are creating a triple jeopardy for the subjects. First they are relationally distancing them, ie the experiments are double blinded and they insist that this is a standard to make the experiments scientific. That is garbage. The ONLY condition that makes an experiment scientific is a control experiment. Thus in the scientific methodology we use the test conditions and see what we get then we remove the test conditions and see what we get. If when we remove the test condition we get no result we can feel reasonably confident that the results we get are due to the test conditons. For ESP our test condition is relationship so we should only use double blinding for the control NOT for the experiment.
Next they have the subjects guessing, which means the areas of the brain used for thinking are most active while those for perception, even sensory perception are less active.
And thirdly they have the subjects guessing symbols or numbers etc on cards that are being viewed passively by another subject. No symbol or number etc is going to be relevant to a person as to make them highly perceptive.
In real life if we are faced with some nebulous situation that presents some danger we get "a bad feeling". This is ESP and we become conscious of it because it is relevant. In the so-called precognition experiments subjects display distress when a computer is about to choose a distressing image to display on the screen and they explain it away as predicting the future.
There sure is evidence of ESP and this cannot come about by physical considerations alone. There is no energy that can go out of one person's brain and into another's. No physical law allows for it. The only way that we can be perceptive of ideas is if those ideas exist in a mind which is both the non-physical realm AND common to all.
I suspect that ESP is being denied because it is a part of the evidence that exposes the real causes of the major diseases and that is the maltreatment of a person through a toxic relationship. The exposure of the real causes of diseases means people can help themselves get well and there is no money for the medicos in that!

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Setanta wrote:
therefore not worth the time of day.

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

. . .and, apparently, something of a phony at that.

I'm shocked, absolutely SHOCKED, that someone on the Internet may be dishonest.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

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?

I think that the premise of your catch-22 is false. Halobacteria, for example, have no brain. Indeed, they don't even have nerve cells, being mere single-celled organisms themselves. Still, they do have light-sensitive molecules embedded in their cell membranes (sensory rhodopsin I and II), which they use for seeking bright areas over dark ones. This goes to show that organisms don't need brains to sense light and act on it. Consequently, the brain doesn't have to have developed first in anticipation of the eye developing, contrary to your assumption that it does.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

You just kind of make this **** up as you go along, don't you? I've asked you before to cite the study and the statements of the authors that they have identified ESP in action. You have provided nothing, nada, zilch for evidence. If it cannot be seen or measured, it's subject to naturalistic, scientific investigation. If you want to continue to claim that ESP exists, that's OK by me. Just don't try to feed us this bullshit that it has a scientific basis.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

We can't see the non-physical realm and we can't measure it either however there is evidence in its existence in the phenomenon of ESP inside of relationship.

ESP? Get serious. You're starting to cross into "Bewildered" territory.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

The pre-cognition experiments that I am referring to were done in about the mid 1990's . They put a bunch of people in front of computer screens and they had the computer select pictures at random. Some of them were distressing. They wired the subjects up with heart /sweat monitors to register the physiological symptoms of distress. They found that in 100% of cases peoople registered distress, ie heart rate elevation and sweat before the computer chose the distressing iimages but only in the case of the distressing images. And the experiments were repeatable. I am looking for this on the net but I don't know if I will find it. I studied it at university that is how I know.
I did look up the jellyfish and I checked with the squid for comparison's sake. I am still working on this and I still reckon the evidence is not there to support evolution.

1 Reply

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

The pre-cognition experiments that I am referring to were done in about the mid 1990's . They put a bunch of people in front of computer screens and they had the computer select pictures at random. Some of them were distressing. They wired the subjects up with heart /sweat monitors to register the physiological symptoms of distress. They found that in 100% of cases peoople registered distress, ie heart rate elevation and sweat before the computer chose the distressing iimages but only in the case of the distressing images. And the experiments were repeatable. I am looking for this on the net but I don't know if I will find it. I studied it at university that is how I know.

You'll never find them because they don't exist. There has never been any repeatable scientifically accurate test which proves any type of pre-cognition.

kYRANI wrote:

I did look up the jellyfish and I checked with the squid for comparison's sake. I am still working on this and I still reckon the evidence is not there to support evolution.

The evidence is already there to support evolution. It's massive and overwhelming, and it's been there for over 100 years now. What you need is some type of evidence which disproves it. But creationists have been looking for that for decades and haven't found a thing. All of the evidence supports evolution and none of it conflicts with it. That's why it's an accepted scientific fact.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

If God created man in his own image... he created man’s eyes to see. Who created God’s eyes and if he created his own how did he see to do that? Wink

1 Reply

@igm,

I don't reckon God created man/the humankind in "his own image" and apart from anything else I am not a Christian because I see Jesus as a prophet. That said, when I read the Greek version (original) of the words "in his own image" I don't get the same meaning. I can build a chair in my own image, that being the image I have in mind. That doesn't mean that the chair is going to look like me. God is not anthropomorphic. This idea was sold to the Greeks by Paul and easy done because the Greeks had conceptualized their gods anthropomorthically. Furthermore it was only some 300 years or less since Alexander the Great died and he was and still is a legend. Alexander was considered to be a god man and his body disappeared on it's way to Egypt from Persia or at least no one knows where it is. So there are huge parallels between what the Greeks believed already and what Paul was teaching (or in my opinion ideas he was pushing on behalf of the Romans).

2 Replies

@kYRANI,

My post here predates my post to you... when I wished you well with your spiritual journey... I don't debate to undermine someone's spiritual journey unless they ask me to or I infer that they want to test their view with others. Even then a post in response would not scratch the surface of what would be needed to undermine for example: some Hindu philosophical views.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

The occurence of light sensitive ganglia is quite common among several phyla (including plants). The higher order "sight/ocular processing" segements of animals seems all to occur in the same genetic segments of an organisms genome. That, coupled with the actual demonstrable fact that lower order visual appurtanences are retained in the genome just like chicken "Teeth" can be re asserted by turning on sp;ecifric "sleeping genes".
If youre a scientist, I have to admonish you for being so unidimensional. Mush of the big time research os opccuring in biochemistry and molecular biology.
Im a geologist who used to be a physical chemist in an earlier life and I dont have enough time in a day to pursue the interesting stuff that gets released in NATURE or GSA or SCIENCE, or GENOMICS.
Read some stuff by Sean Carroll (The evolutionary biologist, not the phsyicist with the same name)

1 Reply

I don't think he's a chemist; he's a creationist.

The simple fact that all living organisms developed through evolution to what we observe today, one needs only to understand that all life forms have some sense to "see."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I will read Sean Carroll -thanks for the reference. Genes relating to light sensitive ganglia in plants and "sight/ocular processing" occuring on the same genetic segment of an organism's genome does make it evidence of evolution for me. Quite the contrary in fact. There is no intelligent design theory -only religious views thus far, but I do have some thoughts on the matter. We see in physics that matter bubbles in and out of what physicists are calling "nothing" or "nothingness" and their explanations are that this happens because nothingness is unstable. That last bit is speculation. However I don't agree with them on this. I think that there are two aspects of reality, one is the physical realm and the other is a non-physical realm. It is not nothing as the physicists explain but an aspect that contains the ideas or whatever we are going to call the precursors of creation/ matter. If a sub-atomic particle appears and disappears again being manifest as some precurory aspect determines, it is in the same vein to say that the genome as is the manifestation of some superset that can be made manifest in a variety of forms giving rise to the variety of species. It would for me explain the huge overlaps between species that exists better than some mythical /supposed common ancestor. And it would explain "sleeper genes" etc. The matter of sight is still a question for me if I consider it from evolutionary theory because two different aspects have to develop side by side, the neurological and the anatomical and they need to develop so that they are in accord with one another.

2 Replies

@kYRANI,

So, if Im getting you right. The sequential occurence of "additive" genes on the same genome segments and different only in their "hierarchy" of species, is not any evidence that you consider compelling?
Then I think that the Creationist worldview is all yours.(As you know , however, using a creationist explanation for genomic expressions and cladistics leaves you with no way to apply that interpretation). I cannot think of any appliction that Creationist Biology has given us, if you know of any please enlighten me. The way I see it, Of what use would the findings of evolutionary genetics be to Creationist "medicine"? becuase adaptability and mutation of entire disease sequences would be just a "hohum" to a Creationist.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

Quote:

If a sub-atomic particle appears and disappears again being manifest as some precurory aspect determines, it is in the same vein to say that the genome as is the manifestation of some superset that can be made manifest in a variety of forms giving rise to the variety of species

Im going to call this one gobledegook. We have no aspects of Quantum physics available to our understanding of the genome (and all of evolutionary theory) Everythibg seems to occur at the super-molecular level, and the aspects of peptide bonding and covalence at the nucleotide levels , have all been fairly understood for decades now.
Maybe Lauie powder camera data would be an application of quantum theory, but all it did was to describe the double helical nature of the DNA crystal.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know