Jump to content


Photo

I'm In The Mood For Fantasy...


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#141 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 April 2010 - 08:26 PM

Depends on what you mean by simple. An eye provides sight, with requires a brain by definition:

View Post


A photo-receptive cell just needs to react in some way to light. Nerve cells nearby will react to it, because that is what they do. No brain is needed.

#142 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 13 April 2010 - 08:29 PM

A photo-receptive cell just needs to react in some way to light.  Nerve cells nearby will react to it, because that is what they do.  No brain is needed.

View Post


And once again, an atheist ignores me. I said that an EYE requires a brain, because part of the very DEFINITION of an EYE is an organ that sends impulses to the brain.

(I got that from wikipedia too. You know how fair and balanced it is towards Creationists.)

#143 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 14 April 2010 - 05:32 AM

And once again, an atheist ignores me. I said that an EYE requires a brain, because part of the very DEFINITION of an EYE is an organ that sends impulses to the brain.

(I got that from wikipedia too. You know how fair and balanced it is towards Creationists.)

View Post

You probably shouldn't get all of your information from wikipedia; it's not the most reliable source. Box jelly fish have 24 eyes, and here's the part that invalidates your above statement, they have NO brain. An eye does not require a brain to send impulses to a nervous system. Remember, research first conclustions last.

#144 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 14 April 2010 - 12:46 PM

I said that an EYE requires a brain, because part of the very DEFINITION of an EYE is an organ that sends impulses to the brain.

(I got that from wikipedia too. You know how fair and balanced it is towards Creationists.)

View Post

I don’t think most textbooks or science professors would agree with Wikipedia’s definition of eyes. The term “eyes” is used to cover everything from simple ocelli (eyespots, even at the sub-cellular level) to compound eyes and complex eyes. There is no rule that a photoreceptor must form an image before we call it an eye.

I should also point out that there are many animals which lack brains, yet have image-forming eyes. The compound eyes of insects, for example.

#145 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 14 April 2010 - 01:53 PM

You probably shouldn't get all of your information from wikipedia; it's not the most reliable source.  Box jelly fish have 24 eyes, and here's the part that invalidates your above statement, they have NO brain.  An eye does not require a brain to send impulses to a nervous system.  Remember, research first conclustions last.

View Post


Again, equivocation. According to *coughevolustionistcough* wikipedia, an eye sends impulses to the visual area of the brain. Therefore, if a box jellyfish has 24 eyes, they are not really eyes but photo-receptors for sensing light.

I don’t think most textbooks or science professors would agree with Wikipedia’s definition of eyes. The term “eyes” is used to cover everything from simple ocelli (eyespots, even at the sub-cellular level) to compound eyes and complex eyes. There is no rule that a photoreceptor must form an image before we call it an eye.


True, but I do prefer the term eye for an organ that forms an image, and simple a photoreceptor for something that only senses light. There is a vast difference between sensing light and dark, and forming images.

I don't want to argue about simple photoreceptors any longer, since neither of us is going to change our minds, and it is getting very boring for both of us to discuss the same issue constantly without any new arguments or points being brought up.

I should also point out that there are many animals which lack brains, yet have image-forming eyes. The compound eyes of insects, for example.


They still have a cluster of nerves used to link the signals together to form the image itself (I'm assuming this, but otherwise it would not be able to process the image in the first place. Notify me if there is somehow a way for an animal to see an image without a system of putting the signals together). It depends on how complex one thinks a brain needs to be to consider it a brain rather than a cluster of nerves.

#146 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:03 PM

True, but I do prefer the term eye for an organ that forms an image, and simple a photoreceptor for something that only senses light. There is a vast difference between sensing light and dark, and forming images.

View Post


Cata, are you trying to ask how an eye pops into existence out of nowhere?

#147 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:06 PM

Cata, are you trying to ask how an eye pops into existence out of nowhere?

View Post


Eyes (that create an image) require a system in the brain to put the image together. However, the brain is needed to put the multiple signals from the multiple eye cells together.

So without a developed part of the brain the eyes would not be useful, or at least there would be no reason to evolve image perception.

But there would be no reason to evolve a complex system of perceiving the image without the eye being set up to give the correct input.
You could argue that the neurons would already be there, but it would require a working organization. If you take the cables needed for a computer to receive messages from things such as speakers, mouse and keyboard, etc, and shove them into random slots, you wouldn't be likely to have a working computer.
The system needs to be able to interface with the eye cells and put the image together.

Its just so obvious. It does not require extensive knowledge about brain development, it is just obvious that the system is irreducible.



#148 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 April 2010 - 09:00 PM

Cata, are you trying to ask how an eye pops into existence out of nowhere?

View Post

Yes Jason. Not to be all proud and stuff, but it is my OP :P

How does evolution explain the how/why eyes and/or ears ever evolved in the first place. So far, all we have is reasons why eyes are beneficial. The question is not whether they're beneficial, it is how/why they ever came into existence. As you might have read in my silly and simplistic look at evolution, many posts ago, I can imagine technically how/why nose/mouth/arms, but I just can not imagine any why/how for eyes/ears?

#149 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 April 2010 - 03:23 AM

Yes Jason.  Not to be all proud and stuff, but it is my OP  :P

How does evolution explain the how/why eyes and/or ears ever evolved in the first place.  So far, all we have is reasons why eyes are beneficial.  The question is not whether they're beneficial, it is how/why they ever came into existence.  As you might have read in my silly and simplistic look at evolution, many posts ago, I can imagine technically how/why nose/mouth/arms, but I just can not imagine any why/how for eyes/ears?

View Post



But all of the beneficial reasons for sensory organs pretty much make up the why. Species who have a start of a sensory organ will either survive better and mate more often.

And the micro steps that have been described in this thread are ways it could have happened. So that is your how question answered.

Also if you are willing to say that you can imagine technically how/why for the nose/mouth/arms...then why are eyes and ears such a big step?

#150 CDNSplinter

CDNSplinter

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Halifax, Nova Scotia

Posted 15 April 2010 - 04:50 AM

Yes Jason.  Not to be all proud and stuff, but it is my OP  :P

How does evolution explain the how/why eyes and/or ears ever evolved in the first place.  So far, all we have is reasons why eyes are beneficial.  The question is not whether they're beneficial, it is how/why they ever came into existence.  As you might have read in my silly and simplistic look at evolution, many posts ago, I can imagine technically how/why nose/mouth/arms, but I just can not imagine any why/how for eyes/ears?

View Post


Hi, i'm a new poster here, my first post was kind of rude so i'll be nicer here. I just have one question for you: why would you accept the evolution of three of the senses, but not the other two?

#151 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 15 April 2010 - 05:15 AM

Again, equivocation. According to *coughevolustionistcough* wikipedia, an eye sends impulses to the visual area of the brain. Therefore, if a box jellyfish has 24 eyes, they are not really eyes but photo-receptors for sensing light.

View Post

Cata, like I said before, do not get all of your information from wikipedia. Yesterday when I posted I left out crucial parts to my reply; did my reply warrant that, I believe it did. I only stated that they box jellyfish had 24 eyes that acted upon a nervous system, or what some scientists call a feedback loop, and had no brain. What I didn't put in, and what *coughevolustionistcough* wikipedia completely fails to mention is this:

Whereas we have one set of multi-purpose eyes that sense color, size, shape and light intensity, box jellyfish have four different types of special-purpose eyes. The most primitive set detects only light levels, but one set of eyes is more sophisticated and can detect the color and size of objects.

One of these eyes is located on the top of the cup-like structure, the other on the bottom, which provides the jellyfish with “an extreme fish-eye view, so it’s watching almost the entire underwater world,” said Garm, who will present his research at the Society of Experimental Biology’s annual meeting, in Scotland.

To test if these eyes helped the jellyfish avoid obstacles, Garm put the jellyfish in a flow chamber and inserted different objects to see if the jellyfish could avoid them. While the jellyfish could avoid objects of different colors and shapes, transparent objects proved more difficult.

“They can’t respond to the see-through ones,” Garm said.

Because jellyfish belong to one of the first groups of animals to evolve eyes (the phylum Cnidaria), Garm said, understanding how their eyes operate will show scientists what eyes were like early in evolutionary time.



That is from the website livescience. I'm sure you can comprehend why I left it out in yesterdays post. So, how is the box jellyfish having 24 eyes that sense both light, color and shape while not having a brain an equivocation?

#152 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 15 April 2010 - 07:59 AM

But all of the beneficial reasons for sensory organs pretty much make up the why. Species who have a start of a sensory organ will either survive better and mate more often.

And the micro steps that have been described in this thread are ways it could have happened. So that is your how question answered.

View Post

All that's been described is the "why an already existing organ might get better", sure micro-evolution. What I'm looking for is the why/how that existing organ ever started to evolve.

Also if you are willing to say that you can imagine technically how/why for the nose/mouth/arms...then why are eyes and ears such a big step?

and

... I just have one question for you: why would you accept the evolution of three of the senses, but not the other two?

View Post

I DO NOT accept the evolution of those things! I made it very clear that I allowed myself an "evolutionary imagination" and offered my imaginary why/how for them. It has been stated many times by evo's in this forum that we should understand the opposition so we are better equipped for the debate, that is what I did - rather simplistically I admit, but that is all I was doing.

#153 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 15 April 2010 - 10:52 AM

Here’s my summary of “how” for eyes and ears:

Eyes: a DNA mutation caused an existing protein to develop a reactive chromophore group. A chromophore is any portion of a molecule that can absorb the photons of visible light. Upon doing so, the molecular configuration changes in some way and the cell receives a stimulus.

Ears: tactile receptors (ex. hairs or cilia on the animal’s body) become sensitive to changes in air pressure because of a selective pressure to detect predators/prey. Hearing isn’t really a new sense in the same way that vision is, since it’s really just the detection of pressure.

#154 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 15 April 2010 - 02:59 PM

Cata, like I said before, do not get all of your information from wikipedia.  Yesterday when I posted I left out crucial parts to my reply; did my reply warrant that, I believe it did.  I only stated that they box jellyfish had 24 eyes that acted upon a nervous system, or what some scientists  call a feedback loop, and had no brain.  What I didn't put in, and what *coughevolustionistcough* wikipedia completely fails to mention is this:
That is from the website livescience.  I'm sure you can comprehend why I left it out in yesterdays post.  So, how is the box jellyfish having 24 eyes that sense both light, color and shape while not having a brain an equivocation?

View Post



How you you think that it senses shape? Can you provide more details on what was done exactly?

Can it make a decision based on these objects or does it simply try to stay away from them instinctively?

#155 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 April 2010 - 08:20 AM

Eyes: a DNA mutation caused an existing protein to develop a reactive chromophore group. A chromophore is any portion of a molecule that can absorb the photons of visible light. Upon doing so, the molecular configuration changes in some way and the cell receives a stimulus.

View Post

This is not a "why", this is still just faith; it does not at all explain "why"; first cause. Why did "a DNA mutation...develop a reactive chromophore group"? There is no reason for it to happen!

Ears: tactile receptors (ex. hairs or cilia on the animal’s body) become sensitive to changes in air pressure because of a selective pressure to detect predators/prey. Hearing isn’t really a new sense in the same way that vision is, since it’s really just the detection of pressure.

Pressures in the air and/or vibrations felt by a thing do not need to result in "hearing". I can feel an earthquake without hearing it!

****************************************************************
Are the evo's yet ready to admit that they simply believe (have faith) that
evolution came up with eyes/ears - without any real rationale as to why/how?
****************************************************************

Faith in God, that He would have thought to give His creation eyes/ears, is still the best answer.
It is the most rational conclusion.

#156 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 16 April 2010 - 11:32 AM

This is not a "why", this is still just faith; it does not at all explain "why"; first cause. Why did "a DNA mutation...develop a reactive chromophore group"? There is no reason for it to happen!

View Post

Why? Because DNA mutations happen all the time, and even today there are mutations that are specific to the pigments in our eyes. Mutations can have various causes, but since DNA codes for proteins the end result is some sort of difference in the amino acid sequence. This could mean the protein folds differently, functions differently, or forms bonds with another protein or inorganic molecule that it normally wouldn’t associate with.

Pressures in the air and/or vibrations felt by a thing do not need to result in "hearing". I can feel an earthquake without hearing it!

View Post

I never said all pressure changes result in sound. But all sound does involve a pressure change, that’s just what sound is. You don’t hear an earthquake because the pressure waves are not moving through the air, they’re moving through the ground.

#157 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 April 2010 - 09:21 PM

Why? Because DNA mutations happen all the time, and even today there are mutations that are specific to the pigments in our eyes. Mutations can have various causes, but since DNA codes for proteins the end result is some sort of difference in the amino acid sequence. This could mean the protein folds differently, functions differently, or forms bonds with another protein or inorganic molecule that it normally wouldn’t associate with.

View Post

How is it that because "DNA mutations happen all the time" this gives us the why/how for the eye? Evolutionists claim they have the corner on rational thinking, what is the rationale for the eye?

I never said all pressure changes result in sound. But all sound does involve a pressure change, that’s just what sound is. You don’t hear an earthquake because the pressure waves are not moving through the air, they’re moving through the ground.

I didn't say that you did. You certainly did imply that these pressure changes are the first cause for the ear. I simply refuted your first cause by explaining that hearing is not necessary for feeling pressure changes and/or vibrations. Sound does not require ears, which is what you are implying; if there is sound, there must be an ear!

And I don't understand why you are explaining why a person doesn't hear an earthquake! I was explaining why I don't need to hear an earthquake, because I can feel it.

#158 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 16 April 2010 - 10:23 PM

How is it that because "DNA mutations happen all the time" this gives us the why/how for the eye? Evolutionists claim they have the corner on rational thinking, what is the rationale for the eye?

View Post

I don’t want to get into technical chemistry here, but an amino acid substitution could result in the formation of a chromophore. A chromophore is not one specific thing, it’s a general term for any chemical group that reacts to visible light. We have plenty of them in our bodies, like the porphyrins that make our blood red and the melanin that darkens our skin and hair. And it’s not uncommon to see mutations in these pigments or the enzymes that regulate them.

It’s not irrational to suggest that a DNA mutation could produce a chromophore group. If the right components were placed next to each other, a conjugated system of double bonds would be formed and react when exposed to light.

I didn't say that you did. You certainly did imply that these pressure changes are the first cause for the ear. I simply refuted your first cause by explaining that hearing is not necessary for feeling pressure changes and/or vibrations. Sound does not require ears, which is what you are implying; if there is sound, there must be an ear!

And I don't understand why you are explaining why a person doesn't hear an earthquake! I was explaining why I don't need to hear an earthquake, because I can feel it.

View Post

Oh sorry about that, I misunderstood you.

I already explained the logic behind sound detection though. If animals can feel pressure changes in the air, ground, or water, they will react more quickly to approaching predators or nearby prey. As you said, pressure changes can be detected without necessarily “hearing”, and I agree.

However if one of the animals was more sensitive to pressure, they would have an advantage over the rest. Hearing is just an extreme sensitivity to pressure changes in the air. The animals which are most sensitive to these pressure changes are more likely to survive. There would be a selective pressure for this sensitivity, and it would eventually lead to feeling even the slightest air pressure changes—which is exactly what hearing is. The line between feeling sound and hearing sound is a blurry one. I have a subwoofer in my room, and when I max the volume I can “feel” the sound all the way from my kitchen, without actually hearing what song is playing.

#159 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 18 April 2010 - 10:04 AM

I don’t want to get into technical chemistry here, but an amino acid substitution could result in the formation of a chromophore. A chromophore is not one specific thing, it’s a general term for any chemical group that reacts to visible light. We have plenty of them in our bodies, like the porphyrins that make our blood red and the melanin that darkens our skin and hair. And it’s not uncommon to see mutations in these pigments or the enzymes that regulate them.

It’s not irrational to suggest that a DNA mutation could produce a chromophore group. If the right components were placed next to each other, a conjugated system of double bonds would be formed and react when exposed to light.

View Post

A "reaction to visible light" is not an eye. Even if these reactions result in better resistance, which is rationally all that would ever happen, they don't produce an eye.

There's a lot of "could", "if", "might" in your posts. You said, "If the right components were placed next to each other,...", what/Who "places" those "components next to each other"?

I already explained the logic behind sound detection though. If animals can feel pressure changes in the air, ground, or water, they will react more quickly to approaching predators or nearby prey. As you said, pressure changes can be detected without necessarily “hearing”, and I agree.

Yes

However if one of the animals was more sensitive to pressure, they would have an advantage over the rest. Hearing is just an extreme sensitivity to pressure changes in the air. The animals which are most sensitive to these pressure changes are more likely to survive. There would be a selective pressure for this sensitivity, and it would eventually lead to feeling even the slightest air pressure changes—which is exactly what hearing is. The line between feeling sound and hearing sound is a blurry one. I have a subwoofer in my room, and when I max the volume I can “feel” the sound all the way from my kitchen, without actually hearing what song is playing.

This helps my argument: Better detection of air pressure is a benefit, still not an ear. Adaptation/Microevolution could handle this.

*****************************************************
When I posted the OP I really did have in mind what we observe today as eyes and ears:
- The eye being a highly complex system that results in the "seeing" of 3-dimensional objects, colors, brightness, distance, depth, width, etc...
- The ear being a highly complex system that results in the "hearing" of sounds, tones, loudness, octives, pitches, etc...

I think I'm being overly fair on the "eye" part of this topic. However, even with the simple "light sensing system" of the zooplankton discussed earlier, it is a stretch to get from a "reaction to light" (resulting in resistance, unless you have experimentation that shows otherwise) to "sensing light and responding to it", whether by choice(intelligence) or instinct.

And that a thing can sense air pressure changes doesn't mean it can "hear". A subwoofer can be "felt" by a deaf person, and I would guess the deaf person could "feel" some of the other parts of the music as well.

The point is this, there are plenty of living things that don't have eyes and/or ears - and they get by just fine. There are many different types of eyes and ears, in many different types of living things. Some eyes work this way and others work that way. Some ears work this way, and others... There is no explanation, from evolution, that gives us the reason why/how eyes and/or ears ever came into existence. We can not say "well, there are eyes and/or ears, and they're definitely beneficial, so they must have evolved :rolleyes:". The evolutionist must admit their "faith" in their worldview.

#160 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 19 April 2010 - 10:10 AM

I DO NOT accept the evolution of those things!  I made it very clear that I allowed myself an "evolutionary imagination" and offered my imaginary why/how for them.  It has been stated many times by evo's in this forum that we should understand the opposition so we are better equipped for the debate, that is what I did - rather simplistically I admit, but that is all I was doing.

View Post


Why did you truncate my post? You completely changed the meaning of the question when you did.

You offered that you could technically imagine how the evolution of the other senses could come about. My question was simply if you could "technically imagine" the how's of the other senses, then why is there any difficulty with eyes and ears...

My point in asking it is that those other senses aren't necessarily any less complex than sight and hearing. granted we get more info from our sight than any other sense, but that is because sight is such an advantage in the proper environments.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users