Jump to content


Photo

I'm In The Mood For Fantasy...


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#121 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:18 PM

No, it still makes it an assumption if you are CLAIMING that there is no evidence.

My goodness Razor, give it up!

We, and I say we because I agree with Cata, we understand there is "evidence", but we don't agree with it, we don't make an assumption there is no evidence - WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE! IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT VALID, SO WE SAY "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" THAT SHOWS THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE! WE ARE STATING A FACT FROM OUR STAND POINT!

It's semantics at its best, Razor, if you truly are not a time waster stop saying we assume this and that when it really isn't what we're doing. Argue about the topic, why/how does evolution ever result in eyes/ears?

OK, done with semantics!

#122 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:26 PM

You are correct, I did assume that you were raised a specific way and I apologize, but I must say that you do seem to say the same canned answer that all creationists seem to have. Raised by an atheist mother, learned about evolution in school, never truly believed it.

That's right, we all go to "creationism cult school" and learn this canned answer. Oh my, what a cop out! That you actually typed that and clicked the "Add Reply" button is more amazing to me than that you actually believe in evolution!

I have to state that you will not EVER get the full undertanding of evolution in high school, so because you learned about it in high school does not mean you fully understand it.

This is proof, yes solid proof, that you really don't read what we post. Obviously, from what said, I did not base my understanding of evolution from what I learned in school.

I don't doubt that you studied, but if you studied with preconceived notions then I could see how you would fail to understand.

Actually, I did study with a preconceived notion - but not from the creationist view point! This sounds like another assumption you made!

If creation can answer all questions can it answer why would an african americans in the US continue to get sickle cell when malaria is pretty much non-existent?

Can it explain why some babies are born anencephalic?

Can it explain the exuberant number of genetic diseases that derive from genes that were "created"?

Yes, yes it can. Hopefully one day God's children will use their God given talents to explain and eradicate these things.

Let me add some others I've heard, I'm sure you've heard them - I would bet, and yes, now I am assuming, but I would bet that you've even mentioned them at some point:
Why does God allow [enter any natural disaster here] to happen and so many people die?
Why doesn't God just put an end to suffering?
Why does God...?
Why doesn't God...?

BECAUSE MAN SINNED! Geesh :huh:

#123 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:25 PM

Well then tell your evolutionist biology teacher they're wrong. 


Who do I trust more, my school's curriculum, made up of adults who make a living teaching, or, some guy on the internet?

I never said oterwise. 


Good.

The side effects are rare, and you read that yourself.


Except that it opens the possibility to them. That means something is wrong allowing the effects to happen when it normally doesn't.

If it's a lost trait then why are the cells still carrying oxygen???


Because half of the hemoglobin is now abnormal. A heterozygous individual has the trait, but normally an individual is supposed to have two copies of the train. Instead they have a working trait and a non-working trait.

#124 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:19 AM

Who do I trust more, my school's curriculum, made up of adults who make a living teaching, or, some guy on the internet?


Except that it opens the possibility to them. That means something is wrong allowing the effects to happen when it normally doesn't.
Because half of the hemoglobin is now abnormal. A heterozygous individual has the trait, but normally an individual is supposed to have two copies of the train. Instead they have a working trait and a non-working trait.

View Post


So let me get this straight. You're saying that because an individual with sickle cell trait has some non functional hemoglobin, then the mutation is a loss information despite the fact that the person is healthy and has resistance to malaria??? :lol: :lol:

Please then, tell me how pesticide resistance in insects is a decrease in information as well. Tell me how citrate metabolizing e. Coli is a decrease in information.

#125 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2010 - 01:47 PM

So let me get this straight.  You're saying that because an individual with sickle cell trait has some non functional hemoglobin, then the mutation is a loss information despite the fact that the person is healthy and has resistance to malaria??? :lol:  :lol:


The person is not healthy. The rare side affects do show that something is not right.
SOME of the information stored was lost. There is a copy of the information still there. There is no new trait, only the loss of one copy. That is evidence of DESIGN, God put a system of "backing up" information in.

Please then, tell me how pesticide resistance in insects is a decrease in information as well.


Easy, loss of the protein affected by the pesticide means that the pesticide has nothing to affect.

Tell me how citrate metabolizing e. Coli is a decrease in information.


What I understand is that it merely opened the pathway so that citrate can enter. The system to digest citrate is already there. Citrate simply cannot enter.

But we do not know what kind of mutation it was. What exactly did the mutation do? If it simply allowed larger molecules like citrate to enter the cell it would not be a new trait, but a modification of an existing trait.

Do you have any information as to what exactly the mutation(s) did?

#126 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 10 April 2010 - 01:51 PM

Well, if the creature follows the dark, down will usually be darker than up. So it would not provide an advantage because the creature might simply go up. Unless a more complex system was present(Which would require multiple mutations) it would not help in the way you described. Which is refuting your answer to the OP.

If the creature follows light, it would go up when, like you said, there could be predators during day.

View Post

In many cases behaviours are genetically determined and can be selected for. Cattle breeding is a great example of this. Wild bulls are vicious, but humans have spent centuries selecting the most docile individuals and as a result today’s cows are generally tame. For a small, brainless, plankton-like animal, genetics will play a big role in determining how it behaves.

If the effect of photosensitivity varied slightly within the population, the “best” response would be one that’s selected for. A new mutation probably won’t produce the same behaviour in every individual affected. If some tend to swim towards the light, and that turns out to be a disadvantage, they will not survive to reproduce. Conversely, swimming towards the light could also benefit the animal by leading it to the algae-rich waters near the surface.

Those are not limited to evolution. Evolution claims ridiculous things such as eyes coming from random mutation, and I think those things were what he was referring to.

View Post

The mechanisms behind evolution are the basis of evolution, and we have evidence that they happen.

He asked why it evolved according you your ideas. So far, you have not given us a good reason why it would be beneficial without any significant development.

View Post

Sensory structures are generally very beneficial, which is why most animals have plenty of them. Photosensitivity opens up a new way to interact with the environment, from finding food to escaping predators.

#127 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2010 - 03:38 PM

In many cases behaviours are genetically determined and can be selected for. Cattle breeding is a great example of this. Wild bulls are vicious, but humans have spent centuries selecting the most docile individuals and as a result today’s cows are generally tame. For a small, brainless, plankton-like animal, genetics will play a big role in determining how it behaves.


If the effect of photosensitivity varied slightly within the population, the “best” response would be one that’s selected for. A new mutation probably won’t produce the same behaviour in every individual affected. If some tend to swim towards the light, and that turns out to be a disadvantage, they will not survive to reproduce. Conversely, swimming towards the light could also benefit the animal by leading it to the algae-rich waters near the surface.


You ignored my point.
There are too possible ways a creature can respond to light with basic photo receptors:
-Light is good
-Light is bad

I have shown that both would be negative without some refinement, such as memory to tell whether there was no light in both directions, and whether that changes or something.

If the creature follows light, it would go to the surface during day, where, as you stated before, there are more predators during the night.
If the creature follows dark, it would stay to the ocean floor because that is usually darker than up, especially when there is algae overhead.


The mechanisms behind evolution are the basis of evolution, and we have evidence that they happen.


Except that NS and such do not need one to believe in evolution to believe is true.

Sensory structures are generally very beneficial, which is why most animals have plenty of them. Photosensitivity opens up a new way to interact with the environment, from finding food to escaping predators.


Only with a system of responding to it, which would certainly require multiple mutations.

I think I have a better point to discuss.

How would eyes that form images be beneficial if the brain has no system of putting that image together?
How would neurons for vision be useful without eyes that form images?

Our brain has a section in it used for vision, processing the responses of the cells in the eye, putting it together, and having the rest of the brain respond to that image. It is much too complex of a system, and merely one part removed would make the others useless.


No eyes-->part for processing vision useless-->systems that respond to the image in a complex way useless
No way to process vision-->complex eyes useless-->systems that respond to the image in a complex way useless
No systems that intelligently respond to the image-->system for processing the image useless-->Complex eyes useless

#128 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 April 2010 - 12:03 PM

The person is not healthy. The rare side affects do show that something is not right.
SOME of the information stored was lost. There is a copy of the information still there. There is no new trait, only the loss of one copy. That is evidence of DESIGN, God put a system of "backing up" information in.

View Post


Is it evidence of DESIGN that humans were succeptable to malaria to begin with???


Easy, loss of the protein affected by the pesticide means that the pesticide has nothing to affect.

View Post


Actually, the most common cause is increased activity of metabolizing enzymes.

CDC Website


What I understand is that it merely opened the pathway so that citrate can enter. The system to digest citrate is already there. Citrate simply cannot enter.

But we do not know what kind of mutation it was. What exactly did the mutation do? If it simply allowed larger molecules like citrate to enter the cell it would not be a new trait, but a modification of an existing trait.

Do you have any information as to what exactly the mutation(s) did?

View Post


The big thing is that the bacteria could metabolize it aerobically.

#129 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 11 April 2010 - 12:12 PM

Is it evidence of DESIGN that humans were succeptable to malaria to begin with???


Malaria did not exist at the time. Sorry if you did not know this.

Actually, the most common cause is increased activity of metabolizing enzymes. 


This should go in a different topic.

The big thing is that the bacteria could metabolize it aerobically.


You ignored my question. Do you have any information about what the mutation did, like what gene it affected, etc?
Yes or no works fine. Any more and it would derail the topic.

#130 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 April 2010 - 03:30 PM

Malaria did not exist at the time. Sorry if you did not know this.

View Post


It didn't exist when???

Malaria

It's apparently been around for something like 50,000 years, so it was surely around when creationists think the Earth was created.


This should go in a different topic.

View Post


Sorry, but you're not a mod, and it's an answer to your earlier assertion. Oops.

You ignored my question. Do you have any information about what the mutation did, like what gene it affected, etc?
Yes or no works fine. Any more and it would derail the topic.

View Post


E. coli website

You can read about the entire experiment here.

#131 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 11 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

I have shown that both would be negative without some refinement, such as memory to tell whether there was no light in both directions, and whether that changes or something.

If the creature follows light, it would go to the surface during day, where, as you stated before, there are more predators during the night.
If the creature follows dark, it would stay to the ocean floor because that is usually darker than up, especially when there is algae overhead.

View Post

No, you’ve brainstormed ways that both could potentially be negative. I could list several ways in which both might be positive.

If it avoids light, it may travel deeper into the water and survive better when the temperature is hot. It might escape surface predators by living deeper. It may find a new food source on the bottom of the pond. It may swim into clouds of dissolved organic matter and feed more efficiently.

If it likes the light, it may discover algae at the surface. It might escape benthic predators that attack from below. It could survive a time of low-oxygen by being near the surface of the water. It could stay warm when the water gets cold.

Look, I can brainstorm too! The fact is, we have no idea what the habitat was like. Were the predators coming from below or from above? Was there more food near the surface? Who knows. So it’s not really fair to assume that any response to light sensitivity will automatically be negative. It really depends on the habitat, and it could potentially be very helpful.

Except that NS and such do not need one to believe in evolution to believe is true.

View Post

How would you define evolution?

How would eyes that form images be beneficial if the brain has no system of putting that image together?
How would neurons for vision be useful without eyes that form images?

View Post

This thread was about primitive eye formation, not about the evolution of the brain. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have the time to talk about brain evolution on top of this. My studies in brain development and whatnot are limited, and I would need to do a lot of research.

But I already explained how being able to tell light from dark might be useful. A slightly more advanced eye would be able to see colors as well.

#132 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 11 April 2010 - 06:23 PM

Look, I can brainstorm too! The fact is, we have no idea what the habitat was like. Were the predators coming from below or from above? Was there more food near the surface? Who knows. So it’s not really fair to assume that any response to light sensitivity will automatically be negative. It really depends on the habitat, and it could potentially be very helpful.


The problem is that so much of your "theory" is based on the possibility of something, ratehr than evidence.

How would you define evolution?


Don't ask that question. There is a topic about it, no need to derail this one.

This thread was about primitive eye formation, not about the evolution of the brain. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have the time to talk about brain evolution on top of this. My studies in brain development and whatnot are limited, and I would need to do a lot of research.


Incorrect. This thread is about eyes and ears in general.

But I already explained how being able to tell light from dark might be useful. A slightly more advanced eye would be able to see colors as well.


Of course it is useful. The argument here is over whether they would be useful in such a simple state, without development in the nervous system. But I really don't want to waste time in an argument that will never go anywhere, which is why I brought up another aspect of eye evolution that would be debatable.

I understand you don't go on the internet all day to argue with 14 year olds though. You don't have to respond.

Color would be useless without development. As you said, without a brain, all a creature would perceive is on or off. It would require further development (in its nervous system probably) and a complex series of events for this to happen.

#133 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2010 - 09:41 AM

Sensory structures are generally very beneficial, which is why most animals have plenty of them. Photosensitivity opens up a new way to interact with the environment, from finding food to escaping predators.

View Post

This is just a rewording of what you've already said.

I am not asking why there are eyes/ears, I'm not confirming that there are eyes/ears, we all know there are eyes/ears and we all know how beneficial they are!

I am asking why/how evolution would ever result in eyes/ears?

If we allow that "photo sensitivity" is a "primitive eye", which is a very broad allowance and certainly would not fit my definition of "eye", we are being overly fair in my opinion. Isabella has argued that "photo sensitivity" could be beneficial. Cata has argrued that photo sensitivity more often will likely result in a negative reaction.

What do we know about photo sensitivity?
What experiments are there that show positive/negative results?
Can these experiments be used in the context of the question of the OP?


***********************************************
We need to start with a blob of primordial ooze, don't we?
***********************************************

How can that blob ever develop eyes/ears?

If I allow myself a very evolutionist imagination, this blob would "move" like the "blob" in the movie "The Blob". It seeks food, right, I mean that's the most primitive explanation of what primordial ooze would do, yes? So it 'blobs' around, maybe after a while (100's of thousands of years :lol:), by way of chemical interaction, it develops the sense of smell, and it can find it's food more efficiently. Then after another while (more 100's of thousands of years :lol:), it develops a sense of taste, again by way of chemical interaction, and now it can eat more efficiently because it's not eating things that cause any negative reactions. Another 100's of thousands of years pass (come on, somebody stop me, please, I'm LOL as I type this), it realizes that as it 'blobs' around, if it extends skinnier parts of it's ooziness and contracts those extensions it can 'blob' around a little quicker, thus after more 1,000,000's of years, voila, arms! Yay :)

The entire time, now millions/billions of years, the sun has stricken it with radiation and now that it has arms it can 'scratch' itself, or maybe even cover up the area that is affected by the light/radiation.

(Am I doing a good job of defining the gist of this forum, Fairy Tale :))

I mean really, do you evo's actually believe this?
(please don't answer)

There is simply no answer from evolution for eyes/ears!

#134 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 April 2010 - 01:56 PM

I am asking why/how evolution would ever result in eyes/ears?

View Post


Because eyes and/or ears give a population better odds of surviving no matter how primitive the organs are.

#135 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2010 - 02:31 PM

Because eyes and/or ears give a population better odds of surviving no matter how primitive the organs are.

View Post

"better odds" is not the why/how they ever evolved in the first place!

"photo sensitivity" doesn't qualify, as Cata has argued the likelihood of it resulting in a positive reaction is very low. Also, as referred to in my silly evolution story, the more likely reaction would be a wanting to alleviate the "pain" (itch). Photo sensitivity is more likely to result in a resistance to light.

#136 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 12 April 2010 - 04:12 PM

The problem is that so much of your "theory" is based on the possibility of something, ratehr than evidence.

View Post

There will obviously be some benefit from being able to see, regardless of the ecosystem. The only situation where blindness might be an advantage is if the organism lives somewhere without any light, in which case eyes would be a waste of energy (which is why we see useless or entirely lost eyes in some cave animals, but that’s beside the point).

There’s really no “possibility” in what I’m saying, there is absolutely an advantageous behaviour associated with vision, but what that behaviour is will depend on the environment. We can just assume that any behaviour will be a bad one.

Sea urchins have eye spots that can only detect light and dark. They are attracted to light, and they like to eat seaweed that grows in shallow water. They don’t have brains. Being attracted to light is an advantage to them, not a disadvantage.

Don't ask that question. There is a topic about it, no need to derail this one.

View Post

But you’re allowed to change the topic to brain development? Seems a bit unfair. I agree that there’s no need to dwell on definitions, however I would still be curious to know your answer if you feel like sharing it. If not, that’s fine.

Incorrect. This thread is about eyes and ears in general.

View Post

It’s about the evolution of simple eyes (and ears), at least that’s what the original post states.

Color would be useless without development. As you said, without a brain, all a creature would perceive is on or off. It would require further development (in its nervous system probably) and a complex series of events for this to happen.

View Post

It would need a response to the color/light, absolutely. This doesn’t mean information needs to be integrated in the brain. Like I said, sea urchins move towards light and they lack brains. They’re not thinking about what they’re doing, they just do it. It’s instinctual, and instincts are genetic and can be selected for just like physical traits.

#137 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2010 - 04:30 PM

There’s really no “possibility” in what I’m saying, there is absolutely an advantageous behaviour associated with vision, but what that behaviour is will depend on the environment. We can just assume that any behaviour will be a bad one.


You are saying there is no "possibility" in eyes randomly coming in one mutation?

Seems a bit unfair. I agree that there’s no need to dwell on definitions, however I would still be curious to know your answer if you feel like sharing it. If not, that’s fine.


"how would you define evolution" is a question asked so many times and has been discussed in so many topics on this forum. Asking it will just lead to equivocation.

It’s about the evolution of simple eyes (and ears), at least that’s what the original post states.


why did Eyes and Ears evolve?
(forget about the complexity, let's just say they're simple for the sake of this topic)


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

the physical sense by which light stimuli received by the eye are interpreted by the brain and constructed into a representation of the position, shape, brightness, and usually color of objects in space


Bob can clarify though. I thought that (more) complex eyes would be more productive in a debate.


But you’re allowed to change the topic to brain development?


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.

#138 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2010 - 05:30 PM

But you’re allowed to change the topic to brain development?

View Post

I don't think it needs to, even "instinctual" eyes don't have any reason to ever have evolved. Again, that creatures have eyes/ears is not the question, we all know they do, it is how/why those eyes/ears would have ever developed in the first place. Saying they're beneficial doesn't provide a first cause!

I don't agree with the "photo sensitivity" argument, and I explain why above; but I will restate - when light/radiation affects something, that thing has a negative reaction and the likelihood is that it will develop a resistance. Is there anybody that will refute that primordial ooze, when bombarded by light/radiation, would do anything but burn to some degree? And thus, the ooze would develop a way to resist the burn; maybe sweat a little? maybe develop thicker outer layer; skin? But eyes? No way!

I reiterate:

What do we know about photo sensitivity?
What experiments are there that show positive/negative results?
Can these experiments be used in the context of the question of the OP?



#139 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 13 April 2010 - 11:53 AM

You are saying there is no "possibility" in eyes randomly coming in one mutation?

View Post

No, what I’m saying is that unless the habitat is pitch black, at least one of the behaviours associated with light will be advantageous.

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

View Post

I pointed out that sea urchins can detect light and move towards it without a brain. They don’t form images, but they are still able to see light and dark. This is an advantage to their feeding behaviour. So the eyes are useful without a brain and sophisticated sight. Obviously the more complex the sight, the bigger the advantage so there would be a selective pressure towards more complex eyes.

I don't agree with the "photo sensitivity" argument, and I explain why above; but I will restate - when light/radiation affects something, that thing has a negative reaction and the likelihood is that it will develop a resistance. Is there anybody that will refute that primordial ooze, when bombarded by light/radiation, would do anything but burn to some degree?

View Post

Well the cell is already exposed to the UV radiation, whether it can see it or not. It’s not as though by developing vision, it’s suddenly more exposed to the sun. If it wasn’t burning before, it wouldn’t start burning just because it can detect the light.

Also, I don’t understand all your references to ooze. The first organism would have been a microscopic cell, like a bacterium.

#140 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 13 April 2010 - 03:12 PM

I pointed out that sea urchins can detect light and move towards it without a brain. They don’t form images, but they are still able to see light and dark. This is an advantage to their feeding behaviour. So the eyes are useful without a brain and sophisticated sight. Obviously the more complex the sight, the bigger the advantage so there would be a selective pressure towards more complex eyes.


You are equivocating.

Eyes are organs that detect light, and send electrical impulses along the optic nerve to the visual and other areas of the brain.


A "simple" eye can only be called a "simple" eye if evolution is assumed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users