[_ Old Earth _] Question about evolution...

[Vic C.]

??? :-?

Brutus: Darwin says "Eyes couldn't have evolved and this refutes evolution."
Asimov and Barbarian: Directly quoting from Darwin, "Actually they may well have evolved this way..."
Brutus misrepresented, to the point of twisting Darwin's opinion the opposite direction, this quote. Or at the very least he was misled by a biased website or source.

LOL, thanks but I was questioning why this ^ was addressed before our questions to Barb. on prev. pages weren't answered. I wasn't clear...sorry.

 

[Blazin Bones]

You are argueing on Technicalities. He was being honest enough to accept that Evolution was strongly contested by the Eye. The fact that he made models showing how it could be possible does not change the fact that he, Himself, was quite skeptical to the possiblity of such an evolution.

As to the Question about DNA code, I'd like to see how you explain that as well.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see... Here's what Darwin said:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

I cannot see how anyone could read that, and conclude that he was skeptical about it happening.

I'm not, BTW, accusing you of a dishonesty. My guess is you never got to see the whole statement, but only the first part, edited to make it look like Darwin didn't believe it was likely.

That's what happened, wasn't it?

 

[Eve777]

Let's see... Here's what Darwin said:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Poor Darwin. He spent his whole life in IFville......Reason should have told him there was a God. Reason should have show him, there is another dimension. He totally missed the Spiritual dimension and that is all that really matters....in the end. That is the evolution he should have been seeking....the one from carnal flesh to spirit.......

 

[Blazin Bones]

Which one of you are quoting what Darwin actually said?

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Either way, Darwin is still being honest enough to admit to the eye being a case where evolution is a tough fit.

 

[Barbarian]

Mine is from the 6th edition of his book. He went back, updated, and reworded some of the passages, usually as new knowledge became available.

Obviously, neither edition shows that he thought it was hard to see how an eye evolved. He merely points out that before we think about it, it seems preposterous, but after we consider the evidence, it is quite reasonable.

There are, in nature, exactly the intermediates Darwin was talking about with regard to the eye. Would you like to see them?

I was right about you not seeing the second half of his statement, right?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Mine is from the 6th edition of his book. He went back, updated, and reworded some of the passages, usually as new knowledge became available.

Obviously, neither edition shows that he thought it was hard to see how an eye evolved. He merely points out that before we think about it, it seems preposterous, but after we consider the evidence, it is quite reasonable.

There are, in nature, exactly the intermediates Darwin was talking about with regard to the eye. Would you like to see them?

I was right about you not seeing the second half of his statement, right?

What evidence are you refering to, his models? Tua's quote even says they are only possibilities. Why not give the species examples, I'd be glad to see them. I said the first time I Posted in this section, I want to learn more about evolution. 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

What evidence are you refering to, his models? Tua's quote even says they are only possibilities. Why not give the species examples, I'd be glad to see them. I said the first time I Posted in this section, I want to learn more about evolution.

Me too, I guess. At least, answer my question. : :wink: :

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see...

Here's how they evolved in mollusks:

For a little better "resolution" of the way it evolve in mollusks, here's a shot of the simulation alongside real eyes in various kinds of snails, each a little more evolved than the last.

And you could look here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30

And there's the infrared eyes evolving in snakes....

(From an earlier post of mine)
"Notice that the boa receptor is little more than a slightly shaded patch of skin with a large number of heat sensitive cells, from the trigeminal nerve.

The phython "eye" is a slightly deepened pit, with a denser array of cells, and sufficient shading to allow some directional interpretation.

The rattlesnake "eye" is deeper and closes off sufficiently to form a primitive iris. The cells are even denser, and a space has opened up behind the cells, creating an air space. This reduces mass and conductivity around the cells, and makes them more sensitive to heat. This last "eye" can actually form a very rough image.

Studies have shown that the images from the regular eyes, and from the infrared eyes are combined in the optic tectum to produce a composite image. Rattlesnakes are interested in small, warm, moving objects. That is what will elicit a strike.

Compare this with the eyes in mollusks. Notice that the same selective pressures have produced analogous organs, in much the same way that selective pressures have resulted in dolphins and sharks with analogous shapes."

 

[Asimov]

One of the strongest evidences of intelligent design is the DNA code in our bodies. Just as you wouldn't expect a complex piece of software to have come about apart from an intelligent designer and creator, so also it is difficult for me to accept that the DNA coding came about apart from the guiding hand of an intelligent Creator.

Argument from incredulity. DNA most likely evolved from simpler replicators, such as RNA.

see: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11246

Isn't it possible to determine if something is designed also by asking whether it fulfills a purpose, and particularly, is specifically formed to fulfill that purpose?

You misapply the term designed as if it means intelligently designed. Non-intelligent design is inherent in adaptation, as species evolve to create niche in the environment.

 

[Asimov]

Poor Darwin. He spent his whole life in IFville......Reason should have told him there was a God. Reason should have show him, there is another dimension. He totally missed the Spiritual dimension and that is all that really matters....in the end. That is the evolution he should have been seeking....the one from carnal flesh to spirit.......

:smt067

:roll: When will you learn? Evolution != Atheism

 

[Blazin Bones]

Barbarian, what does all that prove? You said that there are example of intermediate eyes in nature. Remember that I asked about the human eye. None of those species you showed have any link to a human. Those examples just show Darwins theroy of how the eye developed by using different eyes of different animals. It may help a suggestion that some creatures are less evloved than others, but it does not show in nature that these eyes evolved from more primitive ones.

 

[Asimov]

Barbarian, what does all that prove? You said that there are example of intermediate eyes in nature. Remember that I asked about the human eye. None of those species you showed have any link to a human. Those examples just show Darwins theroy of how the eye developed by using different eyes of different animals. It may help a suggestion that some creatures are less evloved than others, but it does not show in nature that these eyes evolved from more primitive ones.

It proves, through logic, that since we predict what types of eyes we should see in the evolution of an eye, and then in the field see these eyes in the various stages predicted, that evolution is then supported.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, what does all that prove?

It shows that Darwin was right. Evolution of eyes is no problem at all. In fact, as you saw, the same process, with very similar results has happened in several phyla.

You said that there are example of intermediate eyes in nature. Remember that I asked about the human eye. None of those species you showed have any link to a human.

But, since the human eye is no more complex than the most evolved mollusk eye, we know that it could easily evolve. And that was the issue.

Eyes don't fossilize well, and we don't have many living relatives of humans. But we do know from living organisms, that such things evolved not once, but several times.

And that's more than good enough.

Those examples just show Darwins theroy of how the eye developed by using different eyes of different animals.

Nope. I didn't refer to or use his theory at all. I just showed you the evidence, and you made a conclusion.

It may help a suggestion that some creatures are less evloved than others, but it does not show in nature that these eyes evolved from more primitive ones.

Of course it does. We see all sorts of intermediates, each more complex than the previous one. It takes a very strong resistance to reality to deny what it shows.

BTW, I was right about you not being given Darwin's unedited statement, wasn't I?

 

[Blazin Bones]

We see all sorts of intermediates, each more complex than the previous one. It takes a very strong resistance to reality to deny what it shows.

This is your reasoning: since we see that different eyes have different complexity, we can prove evolution occured. It's not strong resistance, it's you have too many holes for me to accept that.

It proves, through logic, that since we predict what types of eyes we should see in the evolution of an eye, and then in the field see these eyes in the various stages predicted, that evolution is then supported.

Okay, if this is How it works, why have we not seen one eye change a bit in the last ten thousand years? With all the species we have in this world one eye should have "evolved" by now right? Speculation proves nothing except speculation.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It proves, through logic, that since we predict what types of eyes we should see in the evolution of an eye, and then in the field see these eyes in the various stages predicted, that evolution is then supported.

Okay, if this is How it works, why have we not seen one eye change a bit in the last ten thousand years? With all the species we have in this world one eye should have "evolved" by now right? Speculation proves nothing except speculation.

...
You do realize your saying that no one has eyes. Try and make your writing clear.
We most certainly have seen some changes to eyes in the past 10000 years, they're just minute and not very interesting. Since no scientist has posited that evolution works at a speed where we can see huge leaps in complexity over a small amount of normal time, then you're still just flinging poo at your strawman version of evolution.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Would you mind telling me How I'm saying no one has eyes? From how you're reading my post. Okay if changes have occured, Asimov says there is no such thing as microevolution, so I guess these small changes would have to be adaptation, right?

 

[Asimov]

Would you mind telling me How I'm saying no one has eyes? From how you're reading my post. Okay if changes have occured, Asimov says there is no such thing as microevolution, so I guess these small changes would have to be adaptation, right?

No, I said that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, over different periods of time.

Small changes exist, but it's evolution. Adaptation is evolution due to environmental pressure.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Small changes exist, but it's evolution. Adaptation is evolution due to environmental pressure.

Enviromental pressure has never been a peice of evolutions peramiters before this last post. Genetic shift, mutation, natural selection, even adaptation by allele frequency, not enviromental pressure. Besides, I thought all of these things must happen for evolution? Otherwise, as me and Keebs have argued about before, you are making evolution and adaptaion the same thing, which they are not.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

With all the species we have in this world one eye should have "evolved" by now right?

You said this. This implies that no eyes have evolved.

How is adaptation NOT evolution? It changes genetic code to something favorably for the organism in the environment. This is what occurs in our modern understanding of evolution. This is also what is meant by environmental pressure.
The ones with the tiniest brogthnors don't get to have as many kids, so tiny brogthnors as a trait in genetic code, is bred out of the species. The environmental pressure is whatever makes a tiny brogthnor a bad thing to have. The evolution that occurs is when Timmy "Big Brogthnor" O'Callahan has a large family and passes on his genetic code to more individuals than Johnny "Tiny" MacMartin.