Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Of The Eye...


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:07 AM

Eugenie Scott is quickly becoming my favorite evolutionist. She seems so convinced by the ad hoc interpretations that are presented to her by other evolutionists that it is kind of fun to watch her confidence as she talks about things with such zeal:

fOtP7HEuDYA

Even though Lamarckism has been totally rejected this is the avenue of appeal present in this video. I haven't seen any recent discussions specifically regarding the eye and what is known about this organ.

What current animal has the 'simplest' eye in nature today?

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:10 AM

Fred posted this a while ago and I think it shows some fascinating design features that are part of the eye that evolutionists ignore to give their imaginary presentations regarding the make believe 'step by step' evolution of the eye:


Posted Image

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:21 AM

Here is some more Lamarkism in action:

Yj_lNQerUJ4

I have to say that if these evolutionary steps are so advantageous why do we have present day creatures frozen in evolution?

I would like to know the exact steps involved when the eye went from some fixed but flexible organ to an eye that rotated freely in a socket with the muscles in the right place and orientation to facilitate proper movement inside that socket?

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:25 AM

You have to have your balone detector fine tuned when it comes to this subject.

Here is there alledged intermediate steps.

Posted Image

None of the above are intermediate steps.In each eye you've added something completely new without any testable mechanism for doing so.there is nothing in between and eye with a cornea and an eye without one,they are all completely different kinds.





Enjoy.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:08 AM

You have to have your baloney detector fine tuned when it comes to this subject.

View Post

Let's help people fine tune those baloney detectors. :)

Now I assume that all these examples provided in the diagram (thanks for that, BTW) do indeed exist in nature. Is that correct? I take it light sensitive cells are present in plants as well because these provide, say a sunflower, the ability to follow the sun. However, the existence of different types of eyes is a far cry from showing some transitional series.

How many independent times do evolutionists presume the eye developed today. I've heard as many as 40 independent pathways are needed to account for the different eye designs that we see today.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:12 AM

Check out the design of the jumping spiders eye structure:

Posted Image

#7 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:13 AM

I have a quick few questions here. Wouldn't a designer only need to design one eye? Surely any designer would design a useful eye and then employ that design in any blueprint of a creature that needed to see wouldn't he? Why create 40 different eyes? Why endow certain creatures with eyes that are as much use as no eyes at all?

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:18 AM

Here is a cross section of an insect's eye:

Posted Image

Why did evolution go convex on insects if concave should have been favored?

Posted Image

Bellow is another diagram showing different types of eyes. It seems like evidence is hand picked to support a theory rather then enjoying all of the diversity of design. Even with the selected designs in this diagram though, an individual can see the wide difference between the designs offered:

Posted Image

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:22 AM

I have a quick few questions here.  Wouldn't a designer only need to design one eye?  Surely any designer would design a useful eye and then employ that design in any blueprint of a creature that needed to see wouldn't he?  Why create 40 different eyes?  Why endow certain creatures with eyes that are as much use as no eyes at all?

View Post

All I can say is that God has revealed His creative genius and beauty in diversity. I think it's awesome that we serve a God who is not a cold utilitarian but a majestic God of variety and beauty. Are you complaining that we live in a majestic Universe that just beckons us to explore and search and grow and understand? I think God did it that way for your pleasure. It's a shame so many people choose to scoff at God rather than give Him the credit and glory He deserves.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:35 AM

It is so cool the way the cat eye's iris works in a unique way to produce a line rather than a pin hole when constricted

Posted Image

How do evolutionists explain away the communication that occurs between retinal detection of light and iris constriction to compensate for the retinas optimum amount of light absorption that permits the optimum sight? How did this communication evolve?

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:25 PM

Now I assume that all these examples provided in the diagram (thanks for that, BTW) do indeed exist in nature. Is that correct? I take it light sensitive cells are present in plants as well because these provide, say a sunflower, the ability to follow the sun. However, the existence of different types of eyes is a far cry from showing some transitional series.


Correct.All of those eyes exist in nature.The ironic thing is the fact that the trilobite has the most complex eye lens of all known fauna and it's in the cambrian.Does'nt evolution predict simple to complex? :)

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:33 PM

I have a quick few questions here.  Wouldn't a designer only need to design one eye?  Surely any designer would design a useful eye and then employ that design in any blueprint of a creature that needed to see wouldn't he?  Why create 40 different eyes?  Why endow certain creatures with eyes that are as much use as no eyes at all?

View Post


No,that is what evolution predicted.Why did Leonardo Di Vinci paint a different picture every time instead of copies of the same one?Even photosensitive cells are important to worms so they can hide in the shade to evade being seen or burned by the sun,so they are not useless.




Thanks.

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:36 PM

Jason777,

Do you have a good diagram of a trilobite's eye? What is the best fossil evidence of the structure and function of this eye?

I found this picture to be pretty cool:

Posted Image

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:47 PM

Check this diagram out:

Posted Image

The octopus has one funky looking eye. I wonder how long it took eye lashes and tear ducts to develop? I wonder how long it took blood vessels to migrate from behind the rods and cones to in front of the rods and cones to protect land dwelling animals from radiation?

Posted Image

#15 Pastor Winthrop

Pastor Winthrop

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Boston

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:54 PM

Eugenie Scott is quickly becoming my favorite evolutionist. She seems so convinced by the ad hoc interpretations that are presented to her by other evolutionists that it is kind of fun to watch her confidence as she talks about things with such zeal:

Even though Lamarckism has been totally rejected this is the avenue of appeal present in this video. I haven't seen any recent discussions specifically regarding the eye and what is known about this organ.

What current animal has the 'simplest' eye in nature today?

View Post


What annoys me most about the "evolution of the eye" or any complex structure is how so much of it rests on unsubstantiated speculation and a shortage of logical inference. Evolutionists simply believe that the selection of replication errors can produce an incremental step-by-step development. They offer no empirical evidence in support of this other than some biased computer simulations.

The reason why the eye couldn't have evolved, is because it is part of a data acquisition system where the eye is the sensor/tranducer , the optical nerve is the relay, the brain is the processor and the efferent system is the actuator.

No matter how simple an eye, you need a system in place which receives optical information, converts it into electrical or chemical data, and relays it to a point where it can be interpreted and appropriate action taken.

Darwin's facile suggestion that if you were to stick a light-sensitive cell on a nerve ending then that would be useful to an animal is completely flawed. Information is only as good as what you use it for and do with it. If the animal had no way of discriminating between light sensitivity and tactile stimulation, there is simply no way in which it would have been useful, and selected for.

#16 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:02 PM

Apologies if the following question was addressed in any of the videos - I can't view them at the moment...

As I understand it, the human eye is kind of the wrong way round, hence we have a blind spot. If it was deliberately designed this way, then how come?

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:12 PM

Apologies if the following question was addressed in any of the videos - I can't view them at the moment...

As I understand it, the human eye is kind of the wrong way round, hence we have a blind spot. If it was deliberately designed this way, then how come?

View Post

I believe the argument you're referring to is the concept that evolution is shown by poorly designed attributes. One of the most common arguments is that octopus have a better eye design than humans because their blood vessels are behind the rods and cones where our eyes are poorly designed because the blood vessels are misplaced because they are in front of the rods and cones blocking light.

This red herring is another example of evolutionists pretending that evolution has produced bad 'design' because it doesn't supposedly design at all it's just a mishmash of spare parts being recycled from feature to feature.

I have a feeling if you swapped eyes with an animal that has rods and cones in front of these light absorbing blood vessels you'd be blind in no time because of the decreased protection the atmosphere provides against radiation from the sun as compared to the water, which would burn out these 'better' eyes in no time.

As for the blind spot, which I believe is a different issue, isn't the design associated with this location where the nerves and other cells converge to transmit information back to the brain as it is calculated out by data processing so that you and I can't see it, amazing?

#18 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:16 PM

I believe the argument you're referring to is the concept that evolution is shown by poorly designed attributes. One of the most common arguments is that octopus have a better eye design than humans because their blood vessels are behind the rods and cones where our eyes are poorly designed because the blood vessels are misplaced because they are in front of the rods and cones blocking light.

This red herring is another example of evolutionists pretending that evolution has produced bad 'design' because it doesn't supposedly design at all it's just a mishmash of spare parts being recycled from feature to feature.

I have a feeling if you swapped eyes with an animal that has rods and cones in front of these light absorbing blood vessels you'd be blind in no time because of the decreased protection the atmosphere provides against radiation from the sun as compared to the water would burn out these 'better' eyes in no time.

View Post

I'm not suggesting that this proves evolution. Rather, I'm wondering why the eye was deliberately designed badly.

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:17 PM

I'm not suggesting that this proves evolution. Rather, I'm wondering why the eye was deliberately designed badly.

View Post

Did you read what I wrote? The fact is the 'poor design' argument is a red herring.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:18 PM

Also, I added this:

As for the blind spot, which I believe is a different issue, isn't the design associated with this location where the nerves and other cells converge, to transmit information back to the brain as it is calculated out by data processing so that you and I can't see it, amazing?

View Post






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users