[_ Old Earth _] Eye sockets

[John]

I was under the impression the eye evolved first?

To be honest, i think no evolutionist knows.

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

Natural selection can only select that which is already present in an animal's genetic code. And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and "come alive". Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith in future discoveries...not current observations.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Isn't it sad that I have that bookmarked? How is that not enough time?

It seems all those are just adaptations, its still the same, animal/batriea, etc

 

[Dunzo]

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

Natural selection can only select that which is already present in an animal's genetic code.

Well obviously. Mutations are the answer. How could that which doesn't exist be selected?

And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and "come alive". Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith in future discoveries...not current observations.

And again you're introducing abiogenesis where it doesn't belong. Irrelevant.

[quote:bf242]
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Isn't it sad that I have that bookmarked? How is that not enough time?

It seems all those are just adaptations, its still the same, animal/batriea, etc[/quote:bf242]
Beneficial mutations, nonetheless.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that denial isn't going to help at this point.

Nope not denial,

You just did it again. Lots of organisms have eyes, but no eye sockets. You just don't know much about biology.

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.

You're wrong there, too. But we have living examples. Crustaceans generally have nothing shielding eyes. They are usually on stalks.

Barbarian observes:
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,

That fails, too, crabs, for example.

Barbarian on such organisms:
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.

Imagining that scientists do it that way, that's ignorant. No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

we have no proof, and the imaginations of evolutionists are do not count as proof sorry.

I just gave you all sorts of evidence; you seem to regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

Barbarian observes:
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:

You think evolutionary theory says that? I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that. Learn a little about it, and you'll be much better off.

Barbarian observes:
Mutation and natural selection.

No evidance from the past.

There's a huge body of evidence. Thanks to the local disaster that buried the Burgess shale, we have exquisitely preserved ancient chordates that show us this evidence. The evolution of eyesockets, a bit at a time is preserved in the fossils of bony acraniates, where the various bones of the head gradually formed the cranium. Would you like to learn about it?

Beneficial mutations to my knowledge never happened

You don't have a lot of knowledge about it. One of the more interesting recent ones in humans was the evolution of a blood protein in an Italian family that gives very good resistance to arteriosclerosis. Want to learn about that one?

and if it did 4.5 BY is not enough time to explain all the life on earth.

Simple denial won't help you now. Best figure out a way to show that it won't. I've seen some of those attempts, but I'd be pleased to look at your numbers, if you have any.

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

Read a book - Richard Dawkins.

I read one, and didn't care much for his popular books. He has done some good science, but he can be your hero, not mine.

 

[John]

You just did it again. Lots of organisms have eyes, but no eye sockets. You just don't know much about biology.

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

But they all have ways to protect them. God is a amazing aingt he.

You're wrong there, too. But we have living examples. Crustaceans generally have nothing shielding eyes. They are usually on stalks.

But yet there eyes are designed just fine for their environment.

Barbarian observes:
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.

You can't just proclaim "incremental changes" becuase those animals ALWAYS were like that. the were made just fine.

That fails, too, crabs, for example.

Barbarian on such organisms:
There are. You just don't know much about anatomy.

see above.

Imagining that scientists do it that way, that's ignorant. No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

:crazyeyes:

I just gave you all sorts of evidence; you seem to regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

imaginations of evolutionists are do not count as proof sorry.

Barbarian observes:
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.

seems all to convenient

There's a huge body of evidence. Thanks to the local disaster that buried the Burgess shale, we have exquisitely preserved ancient chordates that show us this evidence. The evolution of eyesockets, a bit at a time is preserved in the fossils of bony acraniates, where the various bones of the head gradually formed the cranium. Would you like to learn about it?

Sure i would love to learn about it, if its not based on false bases, biased and lacking any knowledge whatsoever.

You don't have a lot of knowledge about it. One of the more interesting recent ones in humans was the evolution of a blood protein in an Italian family that gives very good resistance to arteriosclerosis. Want to learn about that one?

You still have the same thing, just add time, lol yeah right, that branches off into what could be another thread.

Simple denial won't help you now. Best figure out a way to show that it won't. I've seen some of those attempts, but I'd be pleased to look at your numbers, if you have any.

4.5 seems kind of broad, why not 3.5 or 2.5?


"Read a book" was a quote that Dawkins put forth as an attack on creationists. i simply turned it around on you.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that many organisms don't have eye sockets, which invalidates john's argument)

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

But they all have ways to protect them.

No sockets, though. You were flat out wrong about that. But they have evolved other means of protection.

God is a amazing aingt he.

No kidding. Evolution is a simple, yet highly effective way of making organisms more fit. God is a lot smarter and more capable than creationists are willing to let Him be.

Barbarian observes:
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.

You can't just proclaim "incremental changes" becuase those animals ALWAYS were like that.

Um, no. Early sharks lacked them.

Barbarian observes:
Imagining that scientists do it that way, that's ignorant. No wonder you hate science; you have no idea what it is.

Barbarian also observes:
I just gave you all sorts of evidence; you seem to regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

(denial)

Yep. The final escape for creationists.

Barbarian observes:
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.

seems all to convenient

As I said, God is a lot better at this kind of thing than you are willing to admit.

Barbarian observes:
There's a huge body of evidence. Thanks to the local disaster that buried the Burgess shale, we have exquisitely preserved ancient chordates that show us this evidence. The evolution of eyesockets, a bit at a time is preserved in the fossils of bony acraniates, where the various bones of the head gradually formed the cranium. Would you like to learn about it?

Sure i would love to learn about it,

Great. I'll start a new thread for you. It could be the first step for you to accept God the Creator.

Barbarian observes:
You don't have a lot of knowledge about it. One of the more interesting recent ones in humans was the evolution of a blood protein in an Italian family that gives very good resistance to arteriosclerosis. Want to learn about that one?

You still have the same thing, just add time, lol yeah right

No, the point is that it's a different thing, and it has a very beneficial effect.

J Biol Chem 1985 Dec 25;260(30):16321-5. "Apolipoprotein AIMilano. Accelerated binding and dissociation from lipids of a human apolipoprotein variant," by Franceschini G, Vecchio G, Gianfranceschi G, Magani D, Sirtori CR.

Barbarian observes:
Simple denial won't help you now. Best figure out a way to show that it won't. I've seen some of those attempts, but I'd be pleased to look at your numbers, if you have any.

(declines to do so)

Now that's a surprise. :-D

"Read a book" was a quote that Dawkins put forth as an attack on creationists.

Doesn't seem that clever to me, and less so, if you copy it from someone else.

 

[coal]

But they all have ways to protect them.

No sockets, though. You were flat out wrong about that. But they have evolved other means of protection.

I have a question for you - and don't assume that I have the knowledge to debate further, because I am in the processes of learning and applying - but my main question is how do you, a pro-evolutionist I'd say, go about saying that eyes could evolve in the first place without protection? Either an eye-socket or protection, I believe the very first statement made, and question put out, was how a human was able to "evolve" w/ or w/out an eye-socket to hold our eye? Humans, aside from apes, have specialized eyes and eye-sockets made perfectly for them. If the eyes were smaller or bigger, missing one thing, if the eye-sockets too big or too small, imagine every possible mistake that could go wrong.

An eye-socket too big for an eye that's just right for us would swallow the eyeball, the muscles crushing it, causing blindness from birth and consequently death. An eye-socket too small for an eye would cause too much of the eye to be exposed, resulting in damage and most likely subsequent blindness. Last time I checked that doesn't and hasn't happened before - it seems we have all been born able to see, unless due to birth-defects, not mutations or the fact that evolution has not been proven in humans today, which is a whole debate unto itself.

Even if we came from apes, through evolution, there would be a transition between eye to eye, from eye-socket to eye-socket. There would be skeletal proof of it, since even if we share 98/99 percent (I can never remember the actual percentage) DNA (another debate altogether), we do not share the ability to have different coloured eyes, size of our eyes, size of our eye-sockets. Ironic that the eye from birth is between 65 and 75 percent the size of an adults eye, only growing very little. Made like that from the beginning of creation I'd say

 

[Barbarian]

I have a question for you - and don't assume that I have the knowledge to debate further, because I am in the processes of learning and applying - but my main question is how do you, a pro-evolutionist I'd say, go about saying that eyes could evolve in the first place without protection?

First ones we know about, didn't have protection. But they weren't as delicate and tuned as our eyes. Some were just pigmented spots.

Either an eye-socket or protection, I believe the very first statement made, and question put out, was how a human was able to "evolve" w/ or w/out an eye-socket to hold our eye?

There were eyesockets in our ancestors, long before there were humans. Before primates, before mammals.

Humans, aside from apes, have specialized eyes and eye-sockets made perfectly for them.

How could they evolve differently? BTW, there isn't much difference between ape and human eyes. Primary socket difference is in that we lack brow ridges, because the braincase moved forward, protecting the eyes that way.

If the eyes were smaller or bigger, missing one thing, if the eye-sockets too big or too small, imagine every possible mistake that could go wrong.

And does, sometimes. But natural selection prevents that from becoming established.

An eye-socket too big for an eye that's just right for us would swallow the eyeball, the muscles crushing it, causing blindness from birth and consequently death.

Don't see how. Eye sockets are just passive cavities.

Even if we came from apes, through evolution, there would be a transition between eye to eye, from eye-socket to eye-socket.

Yep. Reduction in brow ridges, for example. Repositioning of sinuses for another.

There would be skeletal proof of it,

Indeed there is.

Ironic that the eye from birth is between 65 and 75 percent the size of an adults eye, only growing very little. Made like that from the beginning of creation I'd say

Actually, it grows more than chimps eyes, as does the postfacial skull. Neotony. We have an extended youth, and therefore these continue to grow, long after chimps have stopped growing.

It's why baby chimps look more human than adult chimps.