Evolution of the Eye and Senses (formerly "Just Some Thoughts")

Why do ciliate researchers insist on viewing voltage gated ionic chanels as "neuron" like and insist on discussing the equivalent of neuropeptide transmitters in that branch below fungi,plants and animals?I suspect that we dont have the proper understanding of the electrotonics and I wonder how that might be univocal (only remaining vestige in science lingo of this "eye") with Maxwell's sense in the word.But yes, it would be a strech to call chrophyll an "EYE". But if the whole thing is fishy well....

Your last two suggestions seem most probable to me. But the gentlemen might not be in possession of more knowledge than is too good for them , if for instance contrary evidence sans some things I, BSM, have said, that there is no actual generatio heteronmya. I would be trying to say that this is false.
see
Kant Critique of TJ section80

quote:

---

We may call a hypothesis of this kind a daring venture of reason, and there may be even of the most acute naturalists through whose head it has not sometimes passed. For it is not absurd, like that generatio aequivoca by which is understood the production of an organized being through the mechanics of crude unorganized matter. It would always remain generation univoca in the most universal sense of the word, for it only considers one organic being as derived from another organic being, although from one which is specifically different; e.g. certain water animals transform themselves gradually into marsh animals and from these, after some generations, into land animals. A priori, in the judgment of reason alone, there is no contradiction here. Only experience gives no example of it; according to experience all generation that we know is generatio homonyma. This is not merely univoca in contrast to the generation of unorganized material, but in the organization that the product is a like kind to that which produced it; and generatio heteronyma, so far as our empirical knowledge of nature extends, is nowhere found.

---

I am tempted to think that Mendel might have thought up the double signification of hybrid and parent in a cross fertilized generation from Kant section 81 on a certain occasion,{"only to leave to its parent its development and nourishment", "would concede to neither parent", "production of hybrids could"}which I used to reach/write the above comment, but there are so many things I need to say to EVCers that I dont have the time to work it all up to the point of a discussion about this as NOT an "analogon of art"(Kant section 65 Critique of Teleological Judgement). Establishing a general 'duty' and specific "obligation" among EVC posters is not a plan that would be easily acommpished could "analogon of life" (op cit)be more properly recognized. I wish it could be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"To speak strictly, then, the organization of nature has in it nothing analogous to any causality we know. We can conversely throw light upon a certain combination, much more often met with in idea than in actuality, by means of an analogy to the so-called immediate natural purposes. In a recent complete transformation of a great people int a state the word organization for the regulation of magistracies, etc., and even the whole body politic, has often beeen fitly used. For in such a whole every member should surely be purpose as well as means, and while all work together toward the possiblity of the whole, each should be determined as regards place and function by means of the Idea of the whole.[Kant probably alludes here to the organization of the United States of America]."same section immediately op. cit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would be needed to describe the difference between an ideal and pathologic conditions in ELEVATING the desire in judgements that need not be artistic as IN THE POWER of the people, appearences that might not be within the topic of this thread, but circulating with FREE will for sure. I would like to think I have given the example below but so far not one is following me yet. It might have to be through the skipping generation facts, if they exis,t that this must be rewritten into, to get it understood. Evos seem to be obsessed that natural selection IS alike causally to artifical selection that they cant seem to bring themselves to find the educt production of selection in nature ON PURPOSE as the baramin product and behind this determine, not merely reflect on, the statistical physics (heteronmya through gladyshev's law in the perfection of the Mendel binomial as the sign of life (not cilia as neuron etc))) from the phenomenological thermodyanmics! Instead, Gould simply talks about the women's pelvis size. I might have found it.

I havent seen that reference but i have a hard time not including any light trap in that materialistic content. What becomes somewhat questionable is certain issues in the history of the "cell theory" if a ciliate/flagellate is considered a pre-eye for then the presumption of evolution seems to mask former disagreement about what the cells were(bark vs reproductive organ parts).I well recall the whole thing with the cell being about whether they were simply a bag of chemicals or rather not as data from the 70s showed and accumulated. I guess I cant bring myself to say what Behe or me might see inside a cell is enough complexity to justify the difference I see between a fish eye and a hamster's. Fish eyes just look dead to me and I cant see a whole paramecium unless i put my eye up to a microscope.I guess you're probably correct if I was going to argue for the ciliates I would have to continue to your level. In my older memory then if the cell is bag then these single cells, plants, and flagelltes cant be eyes any way I would have thought.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-11-2005 06:05 PM