Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Of The Eye...


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#61 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 06 March 2009 - 03:35 PM

It predicts descent with modification.  There have been species of fish observed that have lost their eyes due to their introduction into dark caves where eyes are useless.

Even though trilobites had complex eyes, it doesn't prevent other species from developing their own version of eyes does it?  Any advantage to spot an incoming predator is better than no advantage at all.


Again,your using the arguments and evidence of Creation and trying to put an evolutionary twist on it.

It does indeed prevent other species from developing their own version of an eye,if it's all in your imagination.





Thanks.

#62 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 06 March 2009 - 03:49 PM

Read before attacking it like this. It's a common misconception that evolution has to advance along predefined criteria.


If molecules to man evolution is true,then it certainly does.Sinse it is'nt true you have to change the definition.

All are simple problems with evolution. None of those support any alternate explanation.

Sudden appearance is a relative term. The Cambrian explosion that happened in the blink of any eye actually took place over the course of something like 50 million years which is hardly sudden. I've already addressed stasis. I'd be glad to hear what you have to say about extinction.


They are all criteria for falsification not just problems.Sudden appearance is not a relative term unless your able to quantify geologic time.

The Cambrian explosion was real and has been confirmed by new macroscopic evidence.

Tiny Living Fossil Shows the Cambrian Explosion Was Real

Marine biologists have found a grape-sized creature off the coast of the Bahamas. Mikhail Matz from the University of Texas at Austin and his colleagues discovered a group of single-celled creatures called Gromia sphaerica. A distant relative of the amoebas, it is believed to be the earliest living fossil.

The discovery, soon to be published in the journal Current Biology, was reported recently by BBC News and Discovery News. Both publications hailed it as an astounding find.

While G. sphaerica is a mere three centimeters or 1.2 inches in diameter, for a unicellular animal it is almost a giant. It left a 50-centimeter (20 inch) long trail on the seabed. Scientist did not believe that single-celled creatures could leave trails. They had supposed that all existing "trace fossils" or animal trails were made by multicellular animals.

Charles Darwin knew about the Cambrian Explosion, which weakened the credibility of his theory of evolution. However, he thought that the lack of fossil evidence for gradual evolutionary change was due to "the Imperfection of the Geological Record" as he put it in The Origin of Species (1859).

But the new discovery suggests Darwin was wrong. Matz explained that the find means that the Cambrian Explosion was real. "It must have been a diversification of life on a scale never before seen", Discovery News quoted him as saying. He compared the find to a "burst out of a magic box".

http://ezinearticles.....rian-Explosio...





Enjoy.

#63 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:37 PM

It predicts descent with modification.  There have been species of fish observed that have lost their eyes due to their introduction into dark caves where eyes are useless.

View Post

Most explanations don't bother to "predict" that which they presume to explain. Looks like drastic situations call for drastic measures.

#64 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 March 2009 - 06:32 AM

It predicts descent with modification. 

View Post


What predicts descent with modification? Please be specific.

There have been species of fish observed that have lost their eyes due to their introduction into dark caves where eyes are useless.

View Post


Has anyone found these lost eyes? Are they all stacked in one area, or scattered about( There is pun intended, but I want to show how ludicrous the statement sounds) ? How can fish be found to have lost something that you cannot prove those fish had in the first place? A scientist that makes a statement like that, without empirical evidence, is basing it purely on speculation. There was no “science” involved, just world view propaganda.


Even though trilobites had complex eyes, it doesn't prevent other species from developing their own version of eyes does it?  Any advantage to spot an incoming predator is better than no advantage at all.

View Post


So, now species develop their own eyes? Where do they go to learn this skill, and the lab they work at to develop them. And while they’re in the intermediary stages (or blind) how do they survive?

Or, is it more logical to assume (because this is all you are doing concerning the eye) that these eyes are as they always were (because you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary)?

No, these eyes were designed to do a specific job for specific creatures. Unless you can provide empirical scientific evidence of the intermediary eyes (i.e. development trail) you are believing (or having faith) in an assumption.

The advantage to using logic and real science is that you can expose bad reasoning from a long distance.

#65 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 07 March 2009 - 07:38 AM

The advantage to using logic and real science is that you can expose bad reasoning from a long distance.

View Post

I truly admire this statement. It's frustrating but a little funny to watch evolutionists attempt to limit scrutiny by making a pretend box of people who are smart enough to scrutinize the "truth claims" of evolution and obviously anyone in disagreement is outside the box. It's the ultimate clergy maneuver.

People in the Church have been bitten in the past by the wolves in sheep costumes so we've been tuned to see this power play but this is new for 'free-thinkers' so they think it's an innovative necessity to let the 'scientists', with all their valor, do the science. We know they wouldn't be mislead or lie... they have sheep... I mean... lab coats on. :o

We all have faith and we all exercise it. I must only have a paltry mustard seed amount of it because I can't blindly (pun intended) believe that eyes are a product of random mutations and kept by natural selection which developed independently with blind pitiless indifference (per Dawkins) over 40 times! That's a loyal faithful faith if I've ever seen one to believe that the preordained, purposeful and thoughtful designing is actually the illusion.

#66 Guest_Pitole_*

Guest_Pitole_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 12:04 PM

I find Thunderf00t can be quite annoying too, I originally just intended to post the first video by C0nc0rdance, but then noticed the other one so I added it too. The original challenge is from him, not Thunderf00t, so you could ask him for what he would accept.
C0nc0rdance also has a good series on the evolution of the eye.




Edit Adam_777: Moved from: http://www.evolution...indpost&p=30086

#67 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 15 May 2009 - 12:22 PM

Pitole, consider reading through the rest of this thread to see that Lamarckian evolution is pulled over your eyes as evolutionists pretend to defend what is today called Neo-Darwinism.

#68 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 15 May 2009 - 12:35 PM

I'm sorry Pitole, but thuderf00t and C0nc0rdance are both cut from the same cloth. They give themselves miles of leeway to speculate all day long on things they can't demonstrate and then they turn around with heaping helpings of special pleading to try and discredit creationists. It's sad to watch people subject themselves to so much erroneous logic and reason to protect their pseudoscience.

Their videos are fun to watch. I would recommend them to anyone because they make arguing for creation easier. :D However, I would not try to convince them of anything because they have invested a fair amount of time to be willingly ignorant and that choice is theirs for the making. They already know our arguments anyway I'm sure.

#69 Guest_Pitole_*

Guest_Pitole_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 01:42 PM

I don't see much here from creationists really (maybe as what appear to be links to videos aren't displayed for me). They demand an entirely naturalistic explanation for each individual step in the gradual evolution of the eye and then when this can't be presented to them they just declare whatever they do receive to be insufficient or based on imagination and unfounded speculation. The fact is that we are never going to be able to tell exactly how every single system in the biological world came into being, we are left with at best a series of plausible ideas and 'just so' stories but this doesn't mean that these things didn't evolve, or and that they were created intact (in fact, as has been pointed out, any predictions that we might expect creationism/ID to make turn out to be false). I would say that those videos make an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the eye at least more plausible than a non-evolutionary explanation of it (whatever that may be) and that's good enough for me. We shouldn't invoke God-of-the-gaps arguments, and supernatural engineering miracles where they aren't needed as a naturalistic alternative exists. It's a lot more difficult to construct an argument than it is to simply deny it. Constantly pointing to various things and demanding their entire evolutionary history is not a serious way to discuss these subjects.

Also, I have to ask; what are young earth creationists doing talking about the Cambrian explosion? It is certainly no help to people who think all the organisms were created at the same time, as I said, there are no creatures that we would recognise, mammals, amphibians, reptiles etc.
If we are simply going to play a game of quotations how about "Was there really a Cambrian explosion? Some have treated the issue as semantic - anything that plays out over tens of millions of years cannot be 'explosive', and if the Cambrian animals didn't 'explode', perhaps they did nothing out of the ordinary. Cambrian evolution was not cartoonishly fast... Do we need to posit some unique but poorly understood evolutionary process to explain the emergence of modern animals? I don't think so. The Cambrian Period contains plenty of time to accomplish what the Proterozoic didn't without invoking processes unknown to population geneticists - 20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two."
Andrew Knoll, Life on a Young Planet

Keith Miller is a geologist and Evangelical Christian, here's his article on the Cambrian - http://www.asa3.org/...-97Miller2.html
Also here's Kevin Padian's presentation at the Dover trial - http://www.sciohost....t.html#cambrian .
As biologist David Hillis said at the recent Texas BOE meeting, citing the Cambrian explosion as 'evidence against evolution' (as the Discovery Institute tried to) is a misrepresentation of the data. These type of arguments were problematic when Darwin was writing, but they have been answered since and modern scientists no longer regard them to be so.

#70 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 15 May 2009 - 02:41 PM

I don't see much here from creationists really (maybe as what appear to be links to videos aren't displayed for me). They demand an entirely naturalistic explanation for each individual step in the gradual evolution of the eye and then when this can't be presented to them they just declare whatever they do receive to be insufficient or based on imagination and unfounded speculation. The fact is that we are never going to be able to tell exactly how every single system in the biological world came into being, we are left with at best a series of plausible ideas and 'just so' stories but this doesn't mean that these things didn't evolve, or and that they were created intact (in fact, as has been pointed out, any predictions that we might expect creationism/ID to make turn out to be false). I would say that those videos make an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the eye at least more plausible than a non-evolutionary explanation of it (whatever that may be) and that's good enough for me. We shouldn't invoke God-of-the-gaps arguments, and supernatural engineering miracles where they aren't needed as a naturalistic alternative exists.

What ??? Didn't you just get done explaining away the need for any "naturalistic alternative"? At least start a new paragraph if you're going to pull stunts like that.

And Darwin-of-the-gaps is what you just got done trying to justify. Talk about tangled webs...

It's a lot more difficult to construct an argument than it is to simply deny it. Constantly pointing to various things and demanding their entire evolutionary history is not a serious way to discuss these subjects.

Oh, so Darwin was wrong about what constitutes a "serious objection"? Well, he was wrong about quite a few other things also.

Thankfully, we have a fresh crop of propagandists to tell us what "would falsify evolution", and what should be ignored.

Also, I have to ask; what are young earth creationists doing talking about the Cambrian explosion?

Have you been reading the threads? "Creationists invented the Cambrian explosion - it's just make-believe".

It is certainly no help to people who think all the organisms were created at the same time, as I said, there are no creatures that we would recognise, mammals, amphibians, reptiles etc.

If it's no help, what are you doing complaining about it?

If we are simply going to play a game of quotations how about "Was there really a Cambrian explosion? Some have treated the issue as semantic - anything that plays out over tens of millions of years cannot be 'explosive', and if the Cambrian animals didn't 'explode', perhaps they did nothing out of the ordinary. Cambrian evolution was not cartoonishly fast... Do we need to posit some unique but poorly understood evolutionary process to explain the emergence of modern animals? I don't think so. The Cambrian Period contains plenty of time to accomplish what the Proterozoic didn't without invoking processes unknown to population geneticists - 20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two."
Andrew Knoll, Life on a Young Planet

Keith Miller is a geologist and Evangelical Christian, here's his article on the Cambrian - http://www.asa3.org/...-97Miller2.html
Also here's Kevin Padian's presentation at the Dover trial - http://www.sciohost....t.html#cambrian .
As biologist David Hillis said at the recent Texas BOE meeting, citing the Cambrian explosion as 'evidence against evolution' (as the Discovery Institute tried to) is a misrepresentation of the data. These type of arguments were problematic when Darwin was writing, but they have been answered since and modern scientists no longer regard them to be so.

View Post

Well, if the "problem is solved", and has been so for some time now, why not just present the "solution"? Perhaps ignoring isn't something they think they can sell as a "solution" to parties who aren't predisposed to accept it.

#71 Guest_Pitole_*

Guest_Pitole_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 03:51 PM

My point is I don't see how a person can talk about an event that occurred over 500 million years ago when they believe that the entire universe is no more than about 10,000 years old. The Cambrian explosion (or slow fuse) occurred over many millions (or tens of millions) of years, we have transitional fossils both leading up to, and within, this time period. DNA tells us that animals existed long before the Cambrian, take something such as Trichoplax, its ancestors split from the main branch of animal evolution maybe as much as a billion years ago. We also know that various things were going on which might have prompted the evolutionary changes; such as an increase in atmospheric oxygen, evolution of Hox genes, development of hard parts in response to predation, and so on. So what are you claiming the problem is?


The undeniable temporal stratification we observe in the fossil record is one of the main reasons I find the young-earth position so implausible. You guys want to talk about what has been falsified, well flood geology was falsified an awful long time ago when scientists realised that organisms simply aren't piled up as flood geology absolutely demands that they must be. These people, however, had the intellectual honesty and integrity to abandon this idea. Organisms all over the world are laid in precise layers, there is nowhere on the planet where all the organisms that ever lived are found in the same layers. Yet YECs persist in claiming that they all lived at the same time, and then a flood laid down the layers, a flood incidentally that was powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon and at the same time evenly distribute fossils all around the world in perfect sequential layers. The fact that palaeontologists, geologists, and geophysicists are able to precisely date layers by the uniform sequence of the fossilised remains of organisms makes a complete mockery of the idea that they all lived together at the same time. The oil and gas industries in fact rely on the ability of micropalaeontologists to do precisely that. How about the discovering of Tiktaalik (whether you accept it as transitional or not); Neil Shubin and his team were able to precisely predict the layers that they would discover a certain type of organism in, and they found it. This all makes absolutely no sense on the young-earth flood geology model. Shubin and his colleagues would have just been digging around in randomly assorted rocks containing randomly assorted organisms that all died some time in the last few thousand years. It would have made the task essentially impossible, and it would have been only with the most outrageous stroke of luck that these scientists would have found anything even slightly resembling what they were looking for. This discovery only if those rocks are as old as dating methods say they are.
I will take no rebukes from anyone who believes in such absurdities. Various prominent scientists have said it, and I agree with them; it would be far easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth/universe.

#72 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 15 May 2009 - 05:19 PM

My point is I don't see how a person can talk about an event that occurred over 500 million years ago when they believe that the entire universe is no more than about 10,000 years old.

Is there some sort of a requirement to accept a belief in order to understand it. Sounds like a recipe for evasion of falsification, if ever I saw one.

a: The moon is made of cheese

b: No it isn't. It's made of rock. Astronauts went there and...

a: You aren't qualified to say, since you don't accept the cheese theory. Obviously you don't understand it.

The Cambrian explosion (or slow fuse) occurred over many millions (or tens of millions) of years, we have transitional fossils both leading up to, and within, this time period. DNA tells us that animals existed long before the Cambrian, take something such as Trichoplax, its ancestors split from the main branch of animal evolution maybe as much as a billion years ago. We also know that various things were going on which might have prompted the evolutionary changes; such as an increase in atmospheric oxygen, evolution of Hox genes, development of hard parts in response to predation, and so on. So what are you claiming the problem is?

Why are you asking me? I'm not qualified to comment on beliefs I reject, remember? (Like to see that one applied a tad less selectively.)

The undeniable temporal stratification we observe in the fossil record is one of the main reasons I find the young-earth position so implausible.

Oh, it's mighty deniable. And this is just the kind of case where I don't think it's fair that you get to be selective. How come you get to talk about things you don't accept?

You guys want to talk about what has been falsified, well flood geology was falsified an awful long time ago when scientists realised that organisms simply aren't piled up as flood geology absolutely demands that they must be. These people, however, had the intellectual honesty and integrity to abandon this idea.

False false false. Polywrong. Name three scientists from "an awful long time ago" who understood flood geology and abandoned it. Your assertion is pure antihistory. I challenge it every time I see it. Will you be the first repeater of this disinformation to be man enough to retract the statement?

If you want to discuss the flood, there are threads available. The phony "flood models" published by evolutionist scoffers are junk. Are you familiar with the term 'straw man argument'?

Organisms all over the world are laid in precise layers, there is nowhere on the planet where all the organisms that ever lived are found in the same layers. Yet YECs persist in claiming that they all lived at the same time, and then a flood laid down the layers, a flood incidentally that was powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon and at the same time evenly distribute fossils all around the world in perfect sequential layers. The fact that palaeontologists, geologists, and geophysicists are able to precisely date layers by the uniform sequence of the fossilised remains of organisms makes a complete mockery of the idea that they all lived together at the same time. The oil and gas industries in fact rely on the ability of micropalaeontologists to do precisely that. How about the discovering of Tiktaalik (whether you accept it as transitional or not); Neil Shubin and his team were able to precisely predict the layers that they would discover a certain type of organism in, and they found it. This all makes absolutely no sense on the young-earth flood geology model. Shubin and his colleagues would have just been digging around in randomly assorted rocks containing randomly assorted organisms that all died some time in the last few thousand years. It would have made the task essentially impossible, and it would have been only with the most outrageous stroke of luck that these scientists would have found anything even slightly resembling what they were looking for. This discovery only if those rocks are as old as dating methods say they are.

And that mess has what to do with the topic?

Am I supposed to respond & contribute to further derailment? Why not post your opinions in the appropriate threads, at least? Oh - that's right - most of your bunk's already exposed before you even post it. And the rest soon would be - right there in the appropriate thread where people who want to read about that topic will be reading.

This is a sore-loser tactic. You see you have no chance to fool anyone about a given topic, but for emotional support & to keep spirits up among your fellow losers, you list a bunch of empty propaganda about other topics. Wow :rolleyes:

I will take no rebukes from anyone who believes in such absurdities. Various prominent scientists have said it, and I agree with them; it would be far easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth/universe.

View Post

I believe the kind you speak of'd rather accept a flat earth than an earth subject to the Holy Living God. It'd be difficult to conclude otherwise. But if all your arguments are just going to boil down to "this is what the mainstream says", you're going to be one of the most boring members ever to register. Do you think this is news to anyone here? Where would you get such an idea?

#73 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:02 PM

Here's a pretty cool blind spot link.

Blindspot test

#74 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:08 PM

Hi Adam,

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?


Here is a good link to read. http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2021
Evolution postulates that all living animals have progressed from simpler creatures, and that by the process of natural selection, organisms have “improved” along the way. Conventional thinking, therefore, suggests that since trilobites are so ancient, they must have been fairly simple creatures with primitive features. However, the eye of the trilobite—which is incredibly complex—refutes such a concept. An analysis of the trilobite and its amazing eye lenses, leaves scientists in awe. Science writer Lisa Shawver once observed that trilobites had “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature” (1974, 105:72). Trilobites did indeed possess the most advanced visual system in the animal kingdom.

In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction.The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure(1993, pp. 54,57, emp. added).

These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).
Enjoy.

View Post


I havn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned - if so my apologies.

The trilobite was found in Cambrian and I believe it is the first eye recorded in the fossil record. So how do these scientist know what the intermediate steps were: Hint, it wasn't the fossil record. Honestly. We can make up stories or hypotheticals all day long.

Creating a hypothetical sequence does not prove evolution.

#75 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:39 PM

What predicts descent with modification? Please be specific.
Has anyone found these lost eyes? Are they all stacked in one area, or scattered about( There is pun intended, but I want to show how ludicrous the statement sounds) ? How can fish be found to have lost something that you cannot prove those fish had in the first place? A scientist that makes a statement like that, without empirical evidence, is basing it purely on speculation. There was no “science” involved, just world view propaganda.
So, now species develop their own eyes? Where do they go to learn this skill, and the lab they work at to develop them. And while they’re in the intermediary stages (or blind) how do they survive?

Or, is it more logical to assume (because this is all you are doing concerning the eye) that these eyes are as they always were (because you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary)?

No, these eyes were designed to do a specific job for specific creatures. Unless you can provide empirical scientific evidence of the intermediary eyes (i.e. development trail) you are believing (or having faith) in an assumption.

The advantage to using logic and real science is that you can expose bad reasoning from a long distance.

View Post

Posted Image

link

ScienceDaily (Feb. 16, 2007) — "Regressive evolution," or the reduction of traits over time, is the result of either natural selection or genetic drift, according to a study on cavefish by researchers at New York University's Department of Biology, the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology, and the Harvard Medical School.

Previously, scientists could not determine which forces contributed to regressive evolution in cave-adapted species, and many doubt the role of natural selection in this process. Darwin himself, who famously questioned the role of natural selection in eye loss in cave fishes, said, "As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse."

The research appears in the most recent issue of the journal Current Biology.

Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness. This makes cavefish a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process.

In this study, the researchers examined the genetic basis of regressive evolution in the eyes and pigmentation of Mexican cavefish. To do so, they mapped the quantitative trait loci (QTL) determining differences in eye and lens sizes as well as the melanophore--or pigment cell--number between cave and surface fish. These QTL represent genes where new mutations arose in cave populations. To better understand the genetic basis for regressive evolution, they focused on two alternative explanations for regression: natural selection, in which beneficial DNA mutations become more common over time, and genetic drift, in which the frequencies of these mutations can rise or fall over time due solely to statistical variation.

Their results suggested that eyes and pigmentation regressed through different mechanisms. Mutations in cave populations that affected eye or lens size invariably caused size reductions. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection and inconsistent with evolution by genetic drift. By contrast, mutations in cave populations that affected pigmentation sometimes caused increases instead of decreases in pigment cell density, consistent with evolution by random processes and genetic drift.

Allaying Darwin's doubts about the role of natural selection in eye loss, the researchers suggest that the high metabolic cost of maintaining the retina is the source of selection against eyes in the cave. By contrast, no such great cost is associated with pigmentation--thus, the two traits regress for different reasons.



The vertebrate retina tissues are very energetically expensive surpassing even the metabolism of the brain. Maintenance of eyes might pose a significant burden in the cave environment.

OTOH - This is a regressive mutation. This only accounts for the loss of eye and does answer the question of how such a complex visual system could have evolved in the first place – by a blind process. pun intended.

#76 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:47 AM

The vertebrate retina tissues are very energetically expensive surpassing even the metabolism of the brain.  Maintenance of eyes might pose a significant burden in the cave environment.

OTOH - This is a regressive mutation.  This only accounts for the loss of eye and does answer the question of how such a complex visual system could have evolved in the first place – by a blind process.  pun intended.

To get any understanding of eye evolution, it is necessary to think about life without vision.
We know that present-day single-cells do not have eyes. The first life was single cells and I am confident they were not created with eyes.
Eyes are therefore something which appeared first on some multicellular organism.
We also know that plants do not have eyes, although many plants show phototropism. Also, there are many simple animals, like earthworms, which do not have eyes.
There are also simple animals which are sensitive to light but do not have full vision.

The evolution of focused vision from a simple photo-sensitive light spot is well understood. For very brief summary see:-
http://www.lu.se/vis...n-and-evolution
Such evolutionary steps would be extremely beneficial mutations if that increased the ability to detect prey (food) direction at greater distance, or could determine predator directions and allow escape.
Darwin's challenge to creationists to prove that vision could nor be explained by slow gradual modification was made 150 years ago, and still has not been met.

#77 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:53 AM

The evolution of focused vision from a simple photo-sensitive light spot is well understood.  For very brief summary see:-
http://www.lu.se/vis...n-and-evolution
Such evolutionary steps would be extremely beneficial mutations if that increased the ability to detect prey (food) direction at greater distance, or could determine predator directions and allow escape.
Darwin's challenge to creationists to prove that vision could nor be explained by slow gradual modification was made 150 years ago, and still has not been met.

View Post

Once again, the explanation you provide is completely Lamarckian in nature. Why is this?

#78 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:57 AM

I like how the lens is a fuzzy spot and than it suddenly just appears... :lol:

Posted Image

Evidence for this progression, zero.

Did you know that most evolutionists try to brush past the fact that the evo-perspective is now leaning towards believing that the eye independently formed over 40 different times?! That's quite a faith claim.

#79 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 28 May 2009 - 07:00 AM

Hey Keith,

Explain to us how the superior oblique muscle evolved from simple beginnings:

Posted Image

#80 urbanguru

urbanguru

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 28 May 2009 - 08:48 AM

You know, I could be an alien ;), but who would take me seriously if I don't provide any evidence for that?

Eye could have evolved "this or that way"? Really? How do you know that it could? How do you know that a mutation could have created a lens when such complex mutations have actually never been observed or proven? Aren't these people supposed to be scientists? :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users