[_ Old Earth _] Eye sockets

[jwu]

1. Google
2. The local high School
3. The local campus
4. Dalhousie University
5. Wait...theres no five yet...

4 out of 5 sources agree we me. what should the #5 be a guy with a Ph.D in something ?

How about google scholar? Pubmed? What exactly did you search for at the university? Are you aware that a proper literature search can take many weeks and encompasses proper online sources and the libraries of several universities? High school libraries and ordinary google hardly count for anything.

And yes, asking an expert in the field (a paleontologist) for sources wouldn't have been a bad idea for sure.

However...while cetaceans do have eyes, many of their species make no use of eye sockets:

Kogia breviceps does not have anything even remotely resembling eye sockets:
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-139-lg.jpg

Orcinus orca only have an indentation on the skull where the eye is located:
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-52-lg.jpg

In pseudorca crassidens it is somewhat more recognizable as an eye socket, but still it's not a real socket. It's just a slightly more round shape:
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bc-71-lg.jpg


While these don't belong to an actual ancestral sequence and all species do have eyes, they do show intermediates between no eye sockets and a round protective shield around the upper half of the eye.

 

[John]

those skulls and there respective owners were designed that way to fit their environment, even still it does not show transition you have 1 and 3 but no 2. would would need at least a .1 of number 2 to even make a n attempt at debunking this.

 

[jwu]

those skulls and there respective owners were designed that way to fit their environment, even still it does not show transition you have 1 and 3 but no 2. would would need at least a .1 of number 2 to even make a n attempt at debunking this.

Well, as previously mentioned, the entire argument rests on the wrong premise that skeletons predate eyes - in reality eyes predate skeletons.

But what exactly in the above selection is insufficient as examples of various stages of "eye integration"? What exactly do you even want to see? Please describe the exact things which you want to see so we can fix the goalposts, give me exact criteria based on which we can decide if a fossil is what you were looking for.

 

[John]

those skulls and there respective owners were designed that way to fit their environment, even still it does not show transition you have 1 and 3 but no 2. would would need at least a .1 of number 2 to even make a n attempt at debunking this.

Well, as previously mentioned, the entire argument rests on the wrong premise that skeletons predate eyes - in reality eyes predate skeletons.

But what exactly in the above selection is insufficient as examples of various stages of "eye integration"? What exactly do you even want to see? Please describe the exact things which you want to see so we can fix the goalposts, give me exact criteria based on which we can decide if a fossil is what you were looking for.

You cannot see any transition. its the same in any case. you have A and C but no B. People say "well we have A and C that means there must have been a B right? " Nope in reality we have A and B, there is no transitions.

There is no fossil.

Even if you showed me one that had "very shallow" eye sockets it would not count. the eyes always were. ever since God made them.

 

[jwu]

So why should i spend time on the internet researching stuff which you won't care about anyway?

Moreover, eye sockets didn't necessarily have to form from "flat" over "shallow" to "deep". Look at the third image in my above post. It shows an entirely different possible intermediate to fully embedded eye sockets. The ToE doesn't even propose that there should be "shallow" eye socket intermediates in first instance, AFAIK!

 

[John]

Nobody at richard dawkins web site can answer this either.

 

[jwu]

They gave the same answer that i already gave you - that eyes predate skeletons.

But where exactly does the ToE predict that skeletons with "shallow" eye sockets should exist in first instance?

 

[John]

They gave the same answer that i already gave you - that eyes predate skeletons.

But where exactly does the ToE predict that skeletons with "shallow" eye sockets should exist in first instance?

you say the eyes came first, but you have no proof. becuase there is none. the eyes always were. ever since creation.

 

[jwu]

How could i provide evidence if you already said that you won't accept it anyway?

Even if you showed me one that had "very shallow" eye sockets it would not count.

 

[John]

Its simple, you either have it or you don't, shallow eye sockets still contian an eye.

 

[jwu]

What are you looking for then? Fossilized eye intermediates? Eyes happen not to fossilize all that well - finding intact eye fossils isn't even expected.

 

[John]

What are you looking for then? Fossilized eye intermediates? Eyes happen not to fossilize all that well - finding intact eye fossils isn't even expected.

You simply can't find an intermedite fossils of eye sockets, and yes, eyes dont preserve well ,so we have no proof eyes evolved at all, its a self answearing question.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, have eyes, but no eyesockets. And as early as the late 1940s, George Gaylord Simpson showed the evolution of eyes from simple patches of pigment to complex focusing eyes in several different phyla.

Want to see one of them?

 

[John]

BTW, have eyes, but no eyesockets. And as early as the late 1940s, George Gaylord Simpson showed the evolution of eyes from simple patches of pigment to complex focusing eyes in several different phyla.

Want to see one of them?

Wow physical prof ? or assumptions ?

Don't get my hopes up man.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow physical prof ? or assumptions ?

Science, as you might know, works on evidence. Simpson showed that in several phyla, the transitional stages still existed in various classes. For example, planarians have cup eyes, little more than light sensitive depressions. Limpets have the cups more depressed, which gives better directional acuity. Some of them have the cup filled with a clear gel, that keeps it clean and gives better resolution. In a nautilus, the rim of the cup is narrowed to make a pinhole that is capable of producing an image. And in the more advanced cephalopods, there is a lens (from the same tissue as the vitreous humor) that refracts a better image. A gradual evolution of eyes, each one useful to the organism possessing it.

Don't get my hopes up man.

Now you know the rest of the story.

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[John]

Wow physical prof ? or assumptions ?

Science, as you might know, works on evidence. Simpson showed that in several phyla, the transitional stages still existed in various classes. For example, planarians have cup eyes, little more than light sensitive depressions. Limpets have the cups more depressed, which gives better directional acuity. Some of them have the cup filled with a clear gel, that keeps it clean and gives better resolution. In a nautilus, the rim of the cup is narrowed to make a pinhole that is capable of producing an image. And in the more advanced cephalopods, there is a lens (from the same tissue as the vitreous humor) that refracts a better image. A gradual evolution of eyes, each one useful to the organism possessing it.

[quote:34a20]Don't get my hopes up man.

Now you know the rest of the story.[/quote:34a20]

Great observation! wrong conclusion.

Anywho back to the main points...eye sockets.

Let me rephrase my original post.

I've been looking into this for quite some time, it seems the only animals ever found without eye sockets are certain varieties of whales,(Thanks JWU.) every other skeleton found, whether Cambrian, Permian, Jurassic or what have you, has eye sockets. (and i am sure there is a good reason why those whales don't) I asked my self (And Others) should we not see a transition between no eye sockets and eye sockets ? its similar to the claim "there should be a smooth transition" Or " we should see billions of transitional fossils" which i agree with, But through out time, whether billions or thousands, eye sockets have always been. How come there is no transitions ?
Its not enough to find a skull with a shallow eye sockets and proclaim "Transition", because the eyes that the sockets would have contained indicate that the sockets were fine they way they were. How can there even be a Transition?
It would appear to me that we always had the eyes...ever since creation, Since eyes are soft and don't preserve all to well we shall never see a transition of the eye. So we can't tell if it evolved at all. We assume because evolution "must" be true, Because the only other model is "Creation" and that is unthinkable.

 

[Barbarian]

Great observation! wrong conclusion.

Hmm... simple denial. The ultimate creationist escape.

Anywho back to the main points...eye sockets.

Let me rephrase my original post.

I've been looking into this for quite some time, it seems the only animals ever found without eye sockets are certain varieties of whales,(Thanks JWU.)

Crabs. Lobsters. Etc. If you mean only chordates, lampreys, sharks, and various acraniates.

every other skeleton found, whether Cambrian, Permian, Jurassic or what have you, has eye sockets. (and i am sure there is a good reason why those whales don't) I asked my self (And Others) should we not see a transition between no eye sockets and eye sockets ?

We do. For example, a shark has no socket, but an orbital plate that protects the eye slightly. Lampreys have no socket, but do have some bones that protect the eye. Like all other things, the socket (and skull) show incremental changes.

[its similar to the claim "there should be a smooth transition" Or " we should see billions of transitional fossils" which i agree with, But through out time, whether billions or thousands, eye sockets have always been. How come there is no transitions ?

There are. You just don't know much about anatomy.

Its not enough to find a skull with a shallow eye sockets and proclaim "Transition", because the eyes that the sockets would have contained indicate that the sockets were fine they way they were.

All transitionals must be "fine the way they are." Otherwise they couldn't exist. Improvements must build on structures that were at least once successful.

How can there even be a Transition?

Mutation and natural selection.

It would appear to me that we always had the eyes...ever since creation, Since eyes are soft and don't preserve all to well we shall never see a transition of the eye.

As you learned, the evolutionary transitions are still with us, in many phyla.

 

[John]

Hmm... simple denial. The ultimate creationist escape.

Nope not denial, just an obvious miss representation of the facts on your part.

Crabs. Lobsters. Etc. If you mean only chordates, lampreys, sharks, and various acraniates.

It seems every animal has something to protect its eyes, shame there is no fossil evidance to support the claim that the eye sockets evolved at the same time as the eye, kind of convienant isn't it.

We do. For example, a shark has no socket, but an orbital plate that protects the eye slightly. Lampreys have no socket, but do have some bones that protect the eye. Like all other things, the socket (and skull) show incremental changes.

I will have to broaden my claim not just to eye sockets but eye protection all together, either way my claim still stands.

There are. You just don't know much about anatomy.

Finding a bone(s) in the dirt and proclaiming to the masses "Transition" is just ignorant. we have no proof, and the imaginations of evolutionists are do not count as proof sorry.

All transitionals must be "fine the way they are." Otherwise they couldn't exist. Improvements must build on structures that were at least once successful.

This "evolution" theory is unguided. unguided = not guided in a particular path or direction; left to take its own course. yet it all goes smoothly even though its like winning the lottery every time, soory its not gonna happen.:roll:

Mutation and natural selection.

No evidance from the past. Beneficial mutations to my knowledge never happened. and if it did 4.5 BY is not enough time to explain all the life on earth.

As you learned, the evolutionary transitions are still with us, in many phyla.

Read a book - Richard Dawkins.

 

[Dunzo]

It seems every animal has something to protect its eyes, shame there is no fossil evidance to support the claim that the eye sockets evolved at the same time as the eye, kind of convienant isn't it.

I was under the impression the eye evolved first?

[quote:82a12]
All transitionals must be "fine the way they are." Otherwise they couldn't exist. Improvements must build on structures that were at least once successful.

This "evolution" theory is unguided. unguided = not guided in a particular path or direction; left to take its own course. yet it all goes smoothly even though its like winning the lottery every time, soory its not gonna happen.:roll: [/quote:82a12]

Natural selection acts as the guide. Think about it. He explained that improvements can only be made on pre-existing successful structures preeeeeetty well.

[quote:82a12]
Mutation and natural selection.

No evidance from the past. Beneficial mutations to my knowledge never happened. and if it did 4.5 BY is not enough time to explain all the life on earth.[/quote:82a12]
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Isn't it sad that I have that bookmarked? How is that not enough time?