Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 136 of 242 (638365)
10-21-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Robert Byers
10-21-2011 3:05 AM


yust a question um what kind of eye would suit your idea what evolution would produce ???

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Robert Byers, posted 10-21-2011 3:05 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 4:08 AM frako has not replied
 Message 184 by Robert Byers, posted 10-27-2011 6:35 AM frako has replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 137 of 242 (638586)
10-24-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Granny Magda
10-16-2011 7:37 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
quote:
What evidence would you expect to see if the eye did evolve?
Just consider the hypothetical for a moment. Imagine, for argument's sake, that the eye did evolve. What material evidence of this would expect to see?
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed. My question is, what is the process that created the eye? Have we seen this process observed in the present? Does the evidence of natural selection (Darwins finches, peppered moths, fruitflys) have anything to do with the process? I dont believe the eye can evolve just as much as I dont think a camera can create itself without intelligence. However the eye is vastly superior to a camera. An eye has to repair itself and is connected to an information processing system.
Sources:
Darwins Blackbox
By Design

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 10-16-2011 7:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 4:45 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 140 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 5:42 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 153 by Granny Magda, posted 10-24-2011 9:34 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 10-24-2011 12:30 PM Portillo has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 242 (638589)
10-24-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by frako
10-21-2011 6:52 PM


Like speech, I dont think the eye is evolutionary. One does not teach a child to speak - they just click and speech is ignited. Likewise, one does not teach someone to see. These are hard wired and come with the species, as with lungs, limbs and nostrils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by frako, posted 10-21-2011 6:52 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 5:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 242 (638592)
10-24-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:03 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed.
I guess you're looking at a different fossil record from the one paleontologists are looking at, in which they see the primitive eyes of primitive chordates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 140 of 242 (638593)
10-24-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:03 AM


Re: Please Answer the Question
Portillo writes:
The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly.....
Please, Portillo, stop telling us things that are certainly not true. It's easy to check whether you tell the truth or not, you know. The fossil record indicates that simple unicellular organisms appeared first, while, billions of years later, the organisms we call animals devoloped. We've even got lots of fossils with intermediate characteristics.
Portillo writes:
... and fully formed.
Unicellular organisms are fully formed organisms. Every organism was fully formed. Even when they were primitive, unicellular and have no eyes at all.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake and added a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:03 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 10-27-2011 12:30 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 141 of 242 (638594)
10-24-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 4:08 AM


Iam Joseph writes:
Like speech, I dont think the eye is evolutionary.
Luckily, what you think doesn't count. You can think that the moon is made from cheeese. It doesn't change reality. You are still wrong. What counts is empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 4:08 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:49 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:55 AM Pressie has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 142 of 242 (638595)
10-24-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Pressie
10-24-2011 5:46 AM


empirical evidence.
Please call me when you have some. All you have to do is get some evidence of a human w/o speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 5:46 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 6:28 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2011 6:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 143 of 242 (638596)
10-24-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Pressie
10-24-2011 5:46 AM


See - emperical debate is chaotic, but always leaning away from Evolution for speech; the latter also based on conjurings not emperical evidences:
quote:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/lang/overview.php
Review Article
Introduction
Linguistics and evolutionary theory share an extremely tenuous historical relationship, as linguistics was more concerned with philology, rather than scientific observation, when Darwin first published the Origin of Species.1 The most important argument within contemporary linguistics and evolutionary theory was sparked by Pinker and Bloom's (1990) seminal analysis outlining comments made by Noam Chomsky and Stephen Jay Gould that contradicted the basis of modern evolutionary theory; this article led to an enduring debate that has persisted over the last decade.2 Since Chomsky and Gould have made a number of assertions that language (the communication system unique to human beings), could not have evolved through natural selection, and natural selection has long been the prevailing theory in evolutionary biology, the challenge presented by Pinker and Bloom was to develop a theory of language origin that was compatible with the mainstream theory of evolution, the theory of natural selection.3 Since then, however, research has provided evidence that some aspects of language may have been naturally selected for, in line with Pinker and Bloom's arguments, while other aspects of language did not result because of natural selection, thus also supporting Chomsky and Gould. The following explores and integrates the history, evidence, and theories surrounding both selectionist and nonselectionist explanations of the origin of language.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 5:46 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 6:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 6:37 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 150 by Admin, posted 10-24-2011 9:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 144 of 242 (638597)
10-24-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 5:55 AM


I don't know who Pinker and Bloom are, but I suspect that your quote-mine is telling untruths here:
From IamJoseph writes:
The most important argument within contemporary linguistics and evolutionary theory was sparked by Pinker and Bloom's (1990) seminal analysis outlining comments made by Noam Chomsky and Stephen Jay Gould that contradicted the basis of modern evolutionary theory;..
Just from this sentence I can see that your source is twisting and turning the truth to such an extent that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the truth. Every single piece of work put forward Gould, for example, actually supported evolutionary theory; he didn't contradict evolutionary theory at all. Your source certainly is not telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 6:45 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 145 of 242 (638598)
10-24-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 5:49 AM


Lots of evidence. It has been presented numerous times. The fact that you ignore all that evidence won't get the evidence to poof into non-existence.
Do you have any empirical evidence that anything has ever been poofed into existence? You haven't presented anything so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:49 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 242 (638601)
10-24-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 5:55 AM


Any mistakes you wish to make about speech are off-topic; this thread is about vision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 147 of 242 (638602)
10-24-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 5:49 AM


You asked for it
IamJoseph writes:
empirical evidence.
Please call me when you have some. All you have to do is get some evidence of a human w/o speech.
It's called muteness

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:49 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 242 (638604)
10-24-2011 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Pressie
10-24-2011 6:25 AM


Just from this sentence I can see that your source is twisting and turning the truth to such an extent that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the truth. Every single piece of work put forward Gould, for example, actually supported evolutionary theory; he didn't contradict evolutionary theory at all. Your source certainly is not telling the truth.
Quite so. The author of the piece actually believes that exaption contradicts "the basis of modern evolutionary theory". How? Well, he takes natural selection to be the basis of the theory, which is not too bad, and then he thinks that exaptions contradict it ... by ... uh ... not being it? By being produced by it, but not qua exaption? It's a muddled piece of writing produced by a linguist and not a biologist.
Anyway, back to the eye, if anyone wants to discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 6:25 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 7:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 149 of 242 (638607)
10-24-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dr Adequate
10-24-2011 6:45 AM


Yes, I see that the creationists are trying to change the subject again. By outright dishonesty. That's why I am going to place the abstract of the article referred to by IamJoseph here. IamJoseph, your sources were not telling the truth at all. From the abstract presented in their own words, Pinker and Bloom actually found that the specialization of grammar evolved by "neo-Darwinian processes". Even IamJoseph's own sources contracdict what IamJoseph wrote. From Pinker and Bloom . I will just place the last sentence here.
Pinker and Bloom ,1990 writes:
...... Reviewing other arguments and data, we conclude that there is every reason to believe that a specialization for grammar evolved by a conventional neo-Darwinian process
Note that it is not evolution of speech, but specialization of grammar. IamJoseph, your sources lied to you. Nothing to do with the evolution of speech. Now back to eyes.
Edited by Pressie, : Confused Portillo and IamJoseph. Fixed it.
Edited by Pressie, : Added wrong URL. Changed it.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 6:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 150 of 242 (638615)
10-24-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
10-24-2011 5:55 AM


Hi IamJoseph,
You're just going from thread to thread posting nonsense. Please stop participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 5:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by IamJoseph, posted 10-24-2011 9:23 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024