Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

Your the one speaking nonsense, unlike an admin or considering posts with zero acumen.FYI< my position was this matter is highly "disputed" in the science world. I can post 50 more of the same evidential links from the most prominent evelutionists concerning particularly the eye organ, the biggest evolutionists there are.Please cease using silly, insultling posts when assuming a monitor's badge. Silly guy!

How are you not be aware that your 'evidence' contradicts your point?If you were a computer you would be a ZX81.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Hi Portillo, thanks for your reply. That is an extremely vague statement. Perhaps you might clarify for me; what sort of "developmental process" do you have in mind? Given that fossilisation is an imperfect process (and fossil discovery is even more haphazard) it would be unreasonable to demand that a specific lineage be completely represented in the fossil record. The fossil record is simply not that complete. Instead it shows us snapshots of evolutionary change over time.Further, the terms "fully formed" or "half formed" are meaningless in biology. No biologist would expect to see a "half formed" creature in the fossil record. That makes no sense and is not a prediction of the ToE. Rather, all organisms are viewed as examples of their own species or clade. There are no partly formed species because there is no blueprint toward which the species is working; there is no goal. Ancestor species are not partly formed versions of their descendant species. They are fully functional examples of their own species.I would love to know what a half formed creature would look like.Meanwhile, if you're interested in what an early vertebrate eye might look like, I highly recommend this article, Early Evolution of the Vertebrate EyeFossil Evidence, by Gavin C. Young. It discusses and illustrates some amazing fossils of early chordates and vertebrates. Particularly interesting are the intricate fossils of 400 million year old placoderm fish, that show detail of cartilage around the eyes and brain case. These fossils preserve superb evidence of eye evolution, as they are intermediate between jawless and jawed vertebrates. In general, by evolution, that is by natural selection working upon random mutations.Specifically, in the case of vertebrate eyes, it is thought to have happened by the first photosensitive cells forming into clusters. These clusters gradually became concave, thus allowing limited directional vision. Then they progressed, to a stage of a mucous-filled cavity, then to a cavity covered with a lens. The same process of gradual development led to the various modern vertebrate eyes.Here is a video that goes into more detail on the stages of eye evolution; the most relevant material starts about two minutes in.For an even more detailed look at the structure and evolution of eyes, go here;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnQGUQvtaPg That depends on what you're asking. Have we seen an eye evolve from scratch, from start to finish? No, of course not. Indeed if we had seen an eye form that rapidly, it would falsify many important aspects of the ToE. On the other hand, if you are asking whether the intermediate stages proposed for eye evolution are viable, then yes they are. All of them exist in modern species. We can also watch very primitive eyes gradually changing into more complex eyes during embryological development. Insofar as it provides strong evidence that natural selection can shape an organism over time, then yes. That's one of the observations that is required by the ToE and it's one that has been made. Similarly, the experiments that confirm the ability of random mutation to produce useful new features provide evidence for evolution in general. All of this provides a strong evidential backdrop for the the eye in particular. Well you are entitled to your belief. As it happens, the scientific consensus is not dependant on what you, or I, or anyone else believes. Evidence is all that matters and so far all observations from living species and from the fossil record are consistent with the eye having evolved. And in other respects, the eye is inferior to a camera. For a start, my camera can focus. My eyes can't and need corrective lenses. I can't easily change the lenses on my eyes as I might on a camera, or add a zoom (that last one is particularly annoying when I'm out birdwatching). Also, not wishing to state the obvious, I can't take snapshots with my eyes, print them out and bore my friends with them. My camera is attached to an "information processing system" though;it has a tiny computer inside it.So in actual fact, cameras and eyes are rather dissimilar, each with some strengths and some flaws. The alleged superiority that you are so impressed with is far from being as complete as you seem to think it is. Nor is it true that the superior design must necessarily be designed. Evolved antennae can work better than engineered ones, certainly well enough for NASA to use them. Yet they are not designed, their shapes are determined genetic algorithms, designed to mimic evolution.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Firstly I disagree, your eye can focus (chances are you're long or short sighted) but your focal range might be very limited. Also your eye can still focus with corrective lenses just like your camera.
Secondly, I can't change the lens on my camera either as it is a point and click type so no different to an eye. Your eye can also record some details of an instant in time (ie a snapshot) but it does so through a sytem called memory rather than through film or a digital format. A far more eco friendly system don't you think?

Darwin found this evidence 150 years ago: [quote]In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection.
Origin of SpeciesAs they should if evolution is true. We would need to look at how each gradation of eye would benefit the organism. This is actually quite easy to do with eyes. We can demonstrate a distinct advantage for each step along the way with each step being fully formed as you mentioned.1. Nerve covered with pigment: This offers the advantage of being able to sense light. This would be very helpful for animals that can take shelter in shady areas to avoid predators, or find food if their food source is found in poorly lit or well lit areas.2. Depressed pit with pigmented nerve cells: A good example of this type of eye is the planaria. The depressed pit allows the organism to detect which direction the light is coming from which is an obvious advantage.3. Pinhole type eye: By bringing the edges of the depressed pit close to each other you can create a pinhole type camera eye. This allows for a focused image. Again, a very obvious advantage.4. Protected pinhole type eye: By covering the opening of the pinhole you can protect the retina and prevent evaporation of mucosal surfaces on the interior of the eye.5. Camera type eye: By bending and contorting the clear covering on the pinhole type eye you can control the focal plane. This allows you to do away with the restrictions of a pinhole type eye, namely the size of the aperature. This allows for much more light to hit the retina making a clearer image and also allowing for better vision in low light conditions.Each increase in complexity is an increase in positive features. Each eye is still fully formed just as you claim we see in the fossil record. We are discussing science which involves evidence, not beliefs. The Hubble Telescope says otherwise.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You are posting ideas about speech in a thread about eye evolution. It is nonsense. It isn't. More than 99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution, including the evolution of the eye.

quote:

---

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?

---

Then why don't you discuss eye evolution instead of speech.

I don't understand the analogy. Those ZX81's were quite limited, but they computed logically and accurately.IamJ is doing what IamJ always does. And apparently he just forgot that you aren't supposed to respond to moderators in the discussion forums. A ZX81 would never do that.

Hi Big Al, Well yes, obviously my eyes can focus, but their range is still inferior to a camera. The camera is still superior, even without corrective lenses. You're getting caught up in the analogy. We're not talking about a specific camera here. A very different system. Memories are famously prone to error. If you remembered wearing a blue jacket at your last birthday party, but I show you a photo of you, at the party, wearing a black jacket, which would you trust? The photo or your memory? Also, good luck downloading your favourite memory onto your desktop.Do you have anything to say about eye evolution or would you prefer to squabble about an analogy?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

If film recorded like memory, no one would have ever used a camera twice.Memory doesn't record what you see. Memory is the ever changing story you continue to tell yourself about what you brain decided was or was not important enough to notice.It's not locked down, it's not a recording."Eye witness" accounts are among the worst form of evidence available.

No. My digital camera can "remember" things when it's turned off. Compare that ecological footprint (0) with the cost of keeping me alive. Of course, I do other things too, but the point stands: our brains need power just to keep something the same --- the brain cells involved need a constant supply of nutrients for me to remember something which is in fact constant like what a tiger looks like or the first five digits of pi.

Did you use photoshop? I could have sworn that I was wearing a blue jacket (infact I don't even have black one) on my birthday.

Okay. I see. You have no coherent point to make about the evolution of the eye, so instead you're going to waste everyone's time and attack the analogy. Well if you're just going to be an idiot about it Al, I'm not going to waste any further time on you. Attack the analogy all you like; the whole "eye = camera" analogy wasn't mine in the first place, it was Portillo's. What exactly is your problem? Do you really think that being this childish is doing you any favours?Address the topic or please leave me alone.Mutate and Survive

Hold your horses Granny, I think Al was trying to make the point that a photo is no more trustworthy than people's memory these days, because photos can be edited. I don't think Al was being facetious. Even the seemingly childish remark about the black jacket serves a purpose, I think. If Al could prove he really didn't own a black jacket, that would disqualify the photo as genuine, regardless what he remembered or not.But I agree that the analogy is wearing thin. It's point was to assert that eyes are superior to cameras, and that since cameras are designed by intelligent beings, the more so eyes must be. Flawed logic, but relevant to the discussion.

Hi Parasomnium, But I don't have any horses... Well true, he could be a complete moron, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I disagree. It's an analogy. It doesn't matter what damn colour jackets he actually has. For the purposes of the analogy he has a goddamn black jacket! I might as well reply that I can't have used photoshop because my computer is broken. It's just childish. Or very, very dumb.Also, I would just like to reiterate that I said this was a poor analogy from the start. What would be even more relevant would be to spend some of our time in the eye evolution thread talking about the evolution of the eye. Instead, Big Al would rather witter on about cameras. It's an avoidance tactic, a way of making look as though they're addressing the issue when in fact they're not. It's pathetic.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

But they are notEyes firstly are just tthe lense of the camera the eye does not see the brain does.Eyes do not have flash so they cant make a picture in pich darknessEyes cant zoom.Eyes deteriorate, the lens goes bad, the muscles controlling the lens go bad, stuff grows on them that impairs vision ...., The 50 year old camera i have still works like the day it was bought.Eyes dont have factory testing some are just broken the day you get them (birth) where every camera has a warranty.I could go on but eyes are clearly inferior to cameras.