Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Of The Eye...


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#101 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 May 2009 - 05:18 PM

Who is 'we' in your statement?  Have you studied fossil jellyfish?

The particular fossils discussed in that news report are presented in more detail here:-
http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0001121
The authors describe the particular details visible in their specimens.  They also are specific that the similarity is to orders and not specific modern species.

Remember that jellyfish constitute an entire phylum, on the same level as chordata. - all creatures with a notochord. 
Alternatively, are you trying to define 'kind' as an entire phylum.  That would certainly reduce crowding on Noah's ark.

View Post


We is anyone and everyone who studies these fossils using reason and logic... which usually excludes atheist/evolutionist worshippers. Now what I am saying is these fossilized jellyfish are the remains of the same species that we find today. I'm not speaking of just one species, but whatever species they might belong to. Some of these jellyfish may be extinct, but not all.

I believe kind is talking about species. Species are a group of animals that can breed, and produce fertile offspring. That's easy enough to tell in real life doing real breeding test... like what farmers do every year. Now, if your speaking of fossils... well, any extinct animal is going to be pure assumption based on what the fossil belongs to especially when it's extinct and unable to breed.

#102 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 May 2009 - 09:02 PM

I think your using this mischaracterization to imply that Creationists believe evolution occurs at the phylum level.

There is no demonstratable or experimental evidence that evolution can cross the species or genus level.

I agree that my statement that jellyfish comprise a whole phylum was too sweeping. Sorry. In fact they are only a subphylum.
For breakdown into 4 classes, containing 12 orders, each comprising several families, see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaneidae

It is Scott who seems to be asserting that all jellyfish are a single species. In that way he can say that the 4 fossils come from one single modern-day species.

I agree with your statement that evolution can not cross a species or genus level, All evolution takes place within the confines of the relevant species. Species can divide, and some species become extinct.
The higher divisions, genus, family etc develop when a species has been divided multiple times, and the descendant species can be grouped into genus, family groups etc.
This branching process does not require crossing of any species boundary - what happens is that boundaries move as a species adapts and subdivides.
There is nothing like a dog giving birth to a kitten, but somewhere in the distant past there was a primitive carnivorous mammal who gave birth to the earliest ancestor of dogs and another litter-mate was the ancestor of cats.

#103 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 May 2009 - 09:27 PM

It is Scott who seems to be asserting that all jellyfish are a single species. In that way he can say that the 4 fossils come from one single modern-day species.


Cambrian jellyfish are very similar to modern species.The point is,this family (not subphylum) was'nt believed to have evolved yet for another 200 million years.The phylum Cnidaria has been known from the cambrian for many decades now.

Posted Image

The Cambrian fossil jellyfish, left, shows similarity to the modern jellyfish

By HENRY FOUNTAIN

Your average jellyfish washed up on a beach is hardly recognizable — just an amorphous blob, fast decomposing in the sun. (They don’t call them jellyfish for nothing.)

Which makes the discovery in Utah of four types of well-preserved fossil jellyfish from the Middle Cambrian period, half a billion years ago, all the more remarkable.

In a paper in the open-access online journal PLoS ONE, Paulyn Cartwright of the University of Kansas and colleagues report that these are the oldest jellyfish fossils yet described, by about 200 million years.

The fossils were found in the Marjum Formation in the west-central part of the state. During the Cambrian period, what is now Utah was covered in warm shallow seas, so fossils of many ancient marine organisms are found there. But such well-preserved specimens of soft creatures like jellyfish are uncommon. What helped in this case was that they were compressed into very fine sediment, preserving images of what appear to be tentacles and even some internal features.

Some of those features, the researchers say, are comparable to modern ones, suggesting that jellyfish had already diversified greatly by 500 million years ago. It is not known whether they diversified quickly or got their start long before the Middle Cambrian.


I agree with your statement that evolution can not cross a species or genus level, All evolution takes place within the confines of the relevant species. Species can divide, and some species become extinct.
The higher divisions, genus, family etc develop when a species has been divided multiple times, and the descendant species can be grouped into genus, family groups etc.
This branching process does not require crossing of any species boundary - what happens is that boundaries move as a species adapts and subdivides.
There is nothing like a dog giving birth to a kitten, but somewhere in the distant past there was a primitive carnivorous mammal who gave birth to the earliest ancestor of dogs and another litter-mate was the ancestor of cats.


I was'nt referring to the hopeful monster.I was talking about species changing slowly and gradualy in the Darwinian sense.



Enjoy.

#104 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 May 2009 - 09:59 AM

What speculation would evolutionists propose to explain why only humans have such pronouncedly exposed whites of their eyes?

I found this short blurb:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625720/

Not surprisingly, the explanation is Lamarckian in nature.

Edit: Besides the lame assumption that we evolved our eye characteristics, the rest of the article's experimentation is kind of neat.

#105 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:21 AM

I agree that my statement that jellyfish comprise a whole phylum was too sweeping.  Sorry.  In fact they are only a subphylum.
For breakdown into 4 classes, containing 12 orders, each comprising several families, see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaneidae

It is Scott who seems to be asserting that all jellyfish are a single species.  In that way he can say that the 4 fossils come from one single modern-day species.

I agree with your statement that evolution can not cross a species or genus level,  All evolution takes place within the confines of the relevant species.  Species can divide, and some species become extinct. 
The higher divisions, genus, family etc develop when a species has been divided multiple times, and the descendant species can be grouped into genus, family groups etc. 
This branching process does not require crossing of any species boundary - what happens is that boundaries move as a species adapts and subdivides.
There is nothing like a dog giving birth to a kitten, but somewhere in the distant past there was a primitive carnivorous mammal who gave birth to the earliest ancestor of dogs and another litter-mate was the ancestor of cats.

View Post


I'm not saying that the jellyfish are all from one species, and I'm sorry if I confused you. What I meant to say, or what I thought I said was that these fossils may belong to a living species. Not just one group of species, but whichever they might belong to. They could belong to 10 different living species for all I know ( assuming we have 10 different fossils to go from).

Then again they could be from an extinct species, but I am definetly not taking the atheist side by saying: It is impossible that the jellyfish are living species, or even remotely related to living species. No I'm totally against that idea.

#106 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2009 - 03:11 PM

I found this short blurb:
.............................
Not surprisingly, the explanation is Lamarckian in nature.

Edit: Besides the lame assumption that we evolved our eye characteristics, the rest of the article's experimentation is kind of neat.

The only place where I could see any Lamarckian leaning was:-
"According to one idea, called the cooperative eye hypothesis, the distinctive features that help highlight our eyes evolved partly to help us follow each others' gazes when communicating or when cooperating with one another on tasks requiring close contact. "
Was your comment based on this, or did you find something else?

I am not sure that is Lamarckian rather than sloppy journalism. More correct would probably be 'Light-colored eyes became common in our ancestors because social signals were more clearly visible.' Any such more correct statement would be edited out in favor of the shorter statement.
If there is any puzzle involved, it is perhaps easier to see how the observers benefit by seeing the direction of gaze of the dominant ape-ancestor rather than conferring any direct benefit on the individual who is rolling his eyes.

#107 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:59 PM

I was'nt referring to the hopeful monster.I was talking about species changing slowly and gradualy in the Darwinian sense.

You started by showing pictures of a modern jellyfish and a fossil.
There is definite similarity, as the caption indicates. The technical issue is what differences are discernible, and how these differences compare to differences between members of present-day orders, families etc of jellyfish. This comparison involves expert knowledge of both other fossils and present-day species.
Only when this type of comparison is done is it possible to make some judgment as to the fossil's place.
To assert that they belong to present-day species without doing the comparison indicates you let your preconceptions drive your conclusions.
I am not ruling out the possibility that one of the present-day species might represent a 'living fossil', but that is relatively improbable.

Your comment on 'hopeful monster' suggests that you consider that the only way in which a new phylum, class order etc could be established.
All that is required is slow Darwinian evolution, bur with pronounced divergence between sister species whenever a species branches. This is normally the situation when a species occupies an entirely different and unoccupied territory - like finches on the Galapagos islands.
When divergence and speciation proceeds for sufficient time and extent, it is possible to group the descendant species into genuses, families etc based on the pattern of descent and shared features.

A hopeful monster represents a jump from within a species boundary to somewhere outside. The true picture of species divergence is of the species boundary expanding slowly, diverging and splitting over time.

#108 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:34 AM

Even if they turn out to be identical, I doubt there's much chance for a fossil species to be classified the same as an extant species.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4142258

#109 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:48 AM

What speculation would evolutionists propose to explain why only humans have such pronouncedly exposed whites of their eyes?

I found this short blurb:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625720/

Not surprisingly, the explanation is Lamarckian in nature.

Edit: Besides the lame assumption that we evolved our eye characteristics, the rest of the article's experimentation is kind of neat.

View Post


Of course the explanation is not Lamarkian in nature. If anybody were to propose that it would be very surprising.

#110 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:03 AM

Of course the explanation is not Lamarkian in nature. If anybody were to propose that it would be very surprising.

View Post

Oh come on now, Rich, you know better than that. Someone doesn't have to say "I propose Lamarckism..." In fact, this concept is best assumed and not explained. Of course, if some one proposed it, it would be rejected, but the eye evolution argument and it's nature want's people to assume the plasticity of acquired traits, which only the concept attributed to Lamarck has the imaginary power to make these tales sound feasible. Of course, nobody would give credit to Lamarck because then acknowledgment of how poor and fatally flawed Lamarkism is, would commence. It's better assumed, so the truth doesn't have to be discussed. The Journalist who wrote that article and maybe even the scientists they interviewed were dupes to this assumption they bought. However, evolutionists themselves should have the candor to recognize this upon exposure but I'm not holding my breath because I'm getting used to the lame excuses so the problem stays covered up by those who should know better.

As long as no one is looking at the situation critically, Lamarckism is assumed in the under girding of evolution fairy tales.

#111 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2009 - 11:06 AM

Even if they turn out to be identical, I doubt there's much chance for a fossil species to be classified the same as an extant species.

The Forey paper itself is available free here:-
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ssets/pdf11.pdf
I did not find anything in it to suggest that a fossil species which was actually identical to a modern species would not be classified as belonging to that species.
Are you sure that you ate using 'species' in the scientific sense? Perhaps you mean some much larger taxonomic group like order or class?

With jellyfish, I think there is a real possibility that differences between species are difficult to discern in fossils. Data on species with hard parts has to be more informative.
For comparable information on coelacanths,
http://pharyngula.or...anth_evolution/
Scroll about half-way down the page for the real information.

I agree that it is not possible to conduct cross-breeding experiments on two fossils. However, there is another way to distinguish species with reasonable confidence. Think of dogs and the different pure breeds. These are only maintained because the breeders select mating pairs carefully. When dogs mate indiscriminately the result is mongrels which do not have the distinctive features of any pure breed.

In nature, the species barrier performs the same separating function which the breeder performs for the dogs. Similarly, distinctively different fossils are very much more likely to be from different species than two different individuals from within the same inter-breeding species.

#112 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 June 2009 - 12:08 PM

The Forey paper itself is available free here:-
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ssets/pdf11.pdf
I did not find anything in it to suggest that a fossil species which was actually identical to a modern species would not be classified as belonging to that species.

Finding and recognizing seem to be two different things. The term 'paleospecies' would not exist if not for the assumption "older must be different".

Are you sure that you ate using 'species' in  the scientific sense?  Perhaps you mean some much larger taxonomic group like order or class?

Are you sure you speak English? Perhaps this is your version of Danish or some other Germanic language?

With jellyfish, I think there is a real possibility that differences between species are difficult to discern in fossils.  Data on species with hard parts has to be more informative.
For comparable information on coelacanths,
http://pharyngula.or...anth_evolution/
Scroll about half-way down the page for the real information.

Silly polywrong evohype.


Followed closely

In nature, the species barrier performs the same separating function which the breeder performs for the dogs.  Similarly, distinctively different fossils are very much more likely to be from different species than two different individuals from within the same inter-breeding species.

View Post

By more of the polywrong.

In nature, we don't find critters trying to mate with different kinds of critters. The "species barrier" doesn't even come into play. It's found in test tubes and eye droppers when people try mixing that which wasn't meant to mix.

And selective breeding has always been much more about putting together desired traits than keeping anything out.

And of course it's another attempt to project the role of an intellect upon... nothing whatsoever, and hope it sticks. Here's a thought. How about letting nothing take a turn at posting, and see how well it performs. Won't work without a name? Fine, call your nothing "natural evospin" and put it to work.

#113 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 June 2009 - 12:40 PM

There is definite similarity, as the caption indicates. The technical issue is what differences are discernible, and how these differences compare to differences between members of present-day orders, families etc of jellyfish. This comparison involves expert knowledge of both other fossils and present-day species.
Only when this type of comparison is done is it possible to make some judgment as to the fossil's place.
To assert that they belong to present-day species without doing the comparison indicates you let your preconceptions drive your conclusions.


There is enough detail in the fossil to align it with modern families.Perhaps your faith in evolution is what leads you to completely ignore expert analysis of the fossil.

Some of those features, the researchers say, are comparable to modern ones, suggesting that jellyfish had already diversified greatly by 500 million years ago. It is not known whether they diversified quickly or got their start long before the Middle Cambrian.


Maybe you can tell us why you don't agree with the reserchers.

#114 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:07 PM

There is enough detail in the fossil to align it with modern families.Perhaps your faith in evolution is what leads you to completely ignore expert analysis of the fossil.

Maybe you can tell us why you don't agree with the reserchers.

My dispute was with Scot, who was claiming that the fossils were of the same species as modern jellyfish.

He seems to have reached that conclusion by ignoring what the actual researchers said.
I agree they were very clear. 'some features are comparable to modern families' does not mean all features were identical down to the level of species.

I think you should aim your post at Scot. I suspect he does not use 'species' in any scientific sense.

#115 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 July 2009 - 11:37 AM

Check out these diagrams showing the design of the eye. Look specifically how the superior oblige muscle attaches to the skull after it is thread through the strap:

Posted ImagePosted Image

It's not simply a matter of convenience or a lack of knowledge that leads us to recognize directed design in nature, and not the evolutionary gobbledygook, that our poor school students all around the world are still being indoctrinated with.

#116 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:05 AM

Just when you thought the complexity of the eye was enough,scientists have discovered even more light sensitive cells in fish.

ScienceDaily (July 27, 2009) — Nearly all species have some ability to detect light. At least three types of cells in the retina allow us to see images or distinguish between night and day. Now, researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have discovered in fish yet another type of cell that can sense light and contribute to vision.

Reporting in the journal Nature, the team of neuroscientists shows that retinal horizontal cells, which are nerve cells once thought only to talk to neighboring nerve cells and not even to the brain, are light sensitive themselves.

"This is mind-boggling," says King-Wai Yau, Ph.D., a professor of neuroscience at the Solomon H. Snyder Department of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins.

"For more than 100 years, it's been known that rod cells and cone cells are responsible for sensing light, and therefore, vision," says Yau. "Then, about seven years ago, another light sensor was discovered in the retina, revealing a third type of light-sensitive cells in mammals, so we set out to look at whether this was true in other vertebrates as well."

Focusing their efforts on the melanopsin light sensor, which is responsible for sensing day and night but barely involved — in mammals, at least — in seeing images, Yau's team looked for melanopsin-containing cells in other vertebrates, and found some in the retinal horizontal cells in goldfish and catfish.

Catfish contain two flavors of retinal horizontal cells: those that connect to cone cells, which respond to bright light, and those that connect to rod cells, which respond to dim light. The team took electrical readings from single isolated retinal horizontal cells. They found that light caused a change in electrical current in cone horizontal cells but not in rod horizontal cells.

Horizontal cells, says Yau, allow cross-talk between neighboring photoreceptor cells, allowing these cells to compare the light they sense, a process necessary for the brain to see images. "The brain processes what it sees in context to the surroundings," says Yau. "This allows our brain to see borders and contours—horizontal cells are the reason why we can recognize and see a face, for example."

Testing light at different wavelengths, the team found that these fish horizontal cells are thousands of times less light sensitive than their partner cone cells.

"The bottom line is that the light effect on the horizontal cells is subtle, perhaps to allow the eyes of these animals to fine-tune their functions to different ambient light conditions," says Yau. "But that these horizontal cells are light sensitive at all is a very surprising finding and changes how we think about retinas as a whole."


Science Daily

#117 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:51 AM

JPEG for the Mind: How the Brain Compresses Visual Information

Computers can beat us at math and chess,” said [Ed] Connor [Johns Hopkins], “but they can’t match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.  “This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level.  For now, at least, the .brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.


Your eyes contain about 120 million rods and 6 million cones each. If each receptor represents a pixel, that is 2 x 126 million pixels, or 252 megapixels. These are moving pictures, not stills.

Transmitting that much information is amazing and it defies evolution logic. The process of creating usable information from any source (light in this case) is evidence for a creator. Information systems are only made by intelligence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users