Jump to content


Photo

I'm In The Mood For Fantasy...


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#1 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 30 March 2010 - 10:52 PM

There is no way evolution can answer this query with any confidence...why did Eyes and Ears evolve?
(forget about the complexity, let's just say they're simple for the sake of this topic)

Creation gives a real good reason, God wants us to experience His creation to the fullest.

Evolution has no reason to have Eyes and Ears! Even if "evolution" decided to "evolve" eyes and ears, where would "it" have gotten the idea from? (wait, this is sounding like evolution has intelligence, hold on, wait) hmmm, I can't come up with any "reason" why "evolution" would "evolve" eyes and ears.

;)

#2 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 30 March 2010 - 11:05 PM

Also remember, it evloved eyes independently 40 different times.

#3 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2010 - 01:34 AM

Eyes and ears evolved because they happen to contribute to a very successful survival strategy. They let a given organism see its environment, and moreover, hear its environment.

Creation gives a real good reason, God wants us to experience His creation to the fullest.


No, thats actually a real bad reason. It means god is also concerned with giving woodlice a good time, and octopus a good time and wasps a good time. How can you make such a rediculous statement without any thought- at all?

What about ecology? What about the physiology of the eye or ear? Do these things matter to why an organism has got eyesight or hearing?

Do you even think when you make these statements?

Evolution has no reason to have Eyes and Ears! Even if "evolution" decided to "evolve" eyes and ears, where would "it" have gotten the idea from? (wait, this is sounding like evolution has intelligence, hold on, wait) hmmm, I can't come up with any "reason" why "evolution" would "evolve" eyes and ears.


Yes, i see where your coming from. It got the idea from a big man in the sky who looks like a human being, who has a great long beard and acts like a homicidal maniac, all because his creation wont straighten up and fly right.

The issue - the real issue- is that you dont actually understand evolution, and so cant possibly imagine why something, anything, might evolve. Theres no conciousness behind evolution, its unguided, thats what gets your goat. Ultimately, the issue is that you dont understand ecology - how organisms live- because evolution and ecology are part of the same process.

#4 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 31 March 2010 - 06:05 AM

It sounds like evolution was intelligent enough to know that organisms needed to see and hear to survive. But why would they need to see and hear to survive from other organism that can't see and hear?

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 March 2010 - 06:21 AM

Eyes and ears evolved because they happen to contribute to a very successful survival strategy. They let a given organism see its environment, and moreover, hear its environment.
No, thats actually a real bad reason. It means god is also concerned with giving woodlice a good time, and octopus a good time and wasps a good time. How can you make such a rediculous statement without any thought- at all?

What about ecology? What about the physiology of the eye or ear? Do these things matter to why an organism has got eyesight or hearing?

Do you even think when you make these statements?
Yes, i see where your coming from. It got the idea from a big man in the sky who looks like a human being, who has a great long beard and acts like a homicidal maniac, all because his creation wont straighten up and fly right.

The issue - the real issue- is that you dont actually understand evolution, and so cant possibly imagine why something, anything, might evolve. Theres no conciousness behind evolution, its unguided, thats what gets your goat. Ultimately, the issue is that you dont understand ecology - how organisms live- because evolution and ecology are part of the same process.

View Post


Incorrect McStone, the problem is that you don't understand as to what the actual breeding process is about, nor do you actually understand evolution.

You claim that evolution is unguided to cover yourself, after the fact that you claim that eyes and ears are great evolutionary advancements... like evolution has a mind. Of course believeing that everything is completely unguided but guided makes absolutely no sense, but alas it is what you believe.

You also don't understand Creation at all, because you state that it's rediculous that God would want animals to have a good time, or to function properly... no McStone that's not dumb... that's very intelligent actually... why make something that doesn't function properly??? McStone... it is you who have made the rediculous statement with no thought at all this time, because it is quite clear that the Bible states that God called His creation good. Obviously you missed that.

So you believe that randomly, but not randomly because the ecosystem that an organism lives in... eyes and ears were produced... oh I get it. It's the same thing as saying... Lemmings keep falling off cliffs, therefore they need to evolve wings, because their ecology demands it... so random mutations will get randomly selected, and one day... they will have wings because their environment demands it...

Alas this thread will not be successful, simply because the evolutionist will continue to fight back with the it's random, but it's not random game.

#6 dwillis

dwillis

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Salem, VA.

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:22 AM

Eyes and ears evolved because they happen to contribute to a very successful survival strategy. They let a given organism see its environment, and moreover, hear its environment.

View Post



But if the first living organisms did NOT have eyes or ears, why would new organisms NEED these features. It just makes no sense. How & why could a living organism that neither sees nor hears suddenly NEED to adapt to its enviroment being able to see & hear. Its actually laughable & makes no sense at all.

#7 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 31 March 2010 - 01:13 PM

But if the first living organisms did NOT have eyes or ears, why would new organisms NEED these features. It just makes no sense. How & why could a living organism that neither sees nor hears suddenly NEED to adapt to its enviroment being able to see & hear. Its actually laughable & makes no sense at all.

View Post

If a random mutation or modification of an existing structure allowed an organism to see or hear, how would that not be beneficial? For deaf and blind microscopic organisms, everything would depend on random encounters, from feeding to finding a mate. The one organism that is able to “see” its food (even if that only means knowing light from dark) or “hear” a potential mate (even if it can just sense a vibration in the air or water) will be at a huge advantage. If it’s so laughable, please explain to me why those things wouldn’t be an advantage during, say, a food shortage?

Zooplankton are a great example of how even simple eyes make a big difference. If a zooplankton has no eyes, it swims all day long hoping that it will randomly collide with some algae to eat. But the ability to “see” light and dark makes the feeding behaviour much more efficient: the plankton will swim horizontally until it encounters dimmer light, which suggests there may be an algal growth directly above it. Then it will begin swimming vertically until it reaches the algae. So again I pose the question, why is it so laughable that an organism with primitive sight might have an advantage in an otherwise blind population? To me, the advantage seems very obvious.

#8 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 01:28 PM

If a random mutation or modification of an existing structure allowed an organism to see or hear, how would that not be beneficial?...If it’s so laughable, please explain to me why those things wouldn’t be an advantage during, say, a food shortage?

It's not a question of benefit, it's a question of how it would know of "sight" or "hearing" if they don't already exist.

...So again I pose the question, why is it so laughable that an organism with primitive sight might have an advantage in an otherwise blind population? To me, the advantage seems very obvious.

Again, it is not the advantage that is in question - it is the "knowing" of the advantage.

#9 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 01:52 PM

Actually, they could not have evolved from a pre-existing structure(A claim with no evidence either) because the brain needs to change as well, in order to be able to accommodate this new source of information.
But evolutionists are just going to mention the whole billions of years thing, even though they have no evidence.

But if the first organisms did not have taste, smell, hearing, or eyes, I don't see the need for a brain. Worms do just fine without a brain, but they do not have any of those.

#10 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 01:55 PM

Eyes and ears evolved because they happen to contribute to a very successful survival strategy. They let a given organism see its environment, and moreover, hear its environment.


Creation gives a real good reason, God wants us to experience His creation to the fullest.

No, thats actually a real bad reason. It means god is also concerned with giving woodlice a good time, and octopus a good time and wasps a good time. How can you make such a rediculous statement without any thought- at all?

What about ecology? What about the physiology of the eye or ear? Do these things matter to why an organism has got eyesight or hearing?

Do you even think when you make these statements?

Evolution has no reason to have Eyes and Ears! Even if "evolution" decided to "evolve" eyes and ears, where would "it" have gotten the idea from? (wait, this is sounding like evolution has intelligence, hold on, wait) hmmm, I can't come up with any "reason" why "evolution" would "evolve" eyes and ears.

Yes, i see where your coming from. It got the idea from a big man in the sky who looks like a human being, who has a great long beard and acts like a homicidal maniac, all because his creation wont straighten up and fly right.

The issue - the real issue- is that you dont actually understand evolution, and so cant possibly imagine why something, anything, might evolve. Theres no conciousness behind evolution, its unguided, thats what gets your goat. Ultimately, the issue is that you dont understand ecology - how organisms live- because evolution and ecology are part of the same process.

View Post

scott did a fine job answering your post McStone.

Are the terms "experience" and "a good time" synonymous? No.
(maybe I did use a couple of my God given brain cells afterall ;))

#11 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2010 - 02:06 PM

It sounds like evolution was intelligent enough to know that organisms needed to see and hear to survive. But why would they need to see and hear to survive from other organism that can't see and hear?


But it didnt just go:

Mother and Father (no eyes and ears)
|
|
|
child (eyes and ears)


The most basic kind of eye is a simple light sensitive cell. Phototaxis: Movement away from light. Organisms with a light sensitive cell can detect when light is present or absent, and react accordingly. Having light sensitive cell (in reality, a cell containing a pigment that breaks down in light, thereby inducing an action potential), is very very simple. This has been evolved in a lab over a few generations (and this would indeed qualify as macrevolution). With simple infoldings of the eye, an aquaeus humor (basically just water) the gradual development of a lens (formed from pre-existing chaperone proteins), the direction of light can be established with more accuracy. There are of course intermediate stages (but not "half a lens" "half an iris" or half of any other component. Earlier, less efficient forms of these complete elements).
Same story with hearing. A gradual process. Mammal hearing is famously controlled by tiny bones in the inner ear. These bones formed the posterior part of early amniotes jaw. Over time, these bones progressive moved further and further back (and shrank) and instead became more and more important in sound amplification. The front part of the amniote jaw (the dentate) is now the mammalian jaw.

Try this:

Flick your chin, you should be able to hear it, loudly. This is because sound waves are travelling down the jaw bone (not through air) to the "amniote jaw" in your ears.

Incorrect McStone, the problem is that you don't understand as to what the actual breeding process is about, nor do you actually understand evolution.


Again with this "breeding process" stuff. When was the last time you actually saw anyone come from a rib?

I understand evolution well; very well in fact.

You claim that evolution is unguided to cover yourself, after the fact that you claim that eyes and ears are great evolutionary advancements... like evolution has a mind. Of course believeing that everything is completely unguided but guided makes absolutely no sense, but alas it is what you believe.


Advancements? yes. Guided? no. They are guided by themselves, because they work to enhance survival and reproduction. Its what we call a positive feedback.

Evolution is a self-promoting thing, theres no room for intelligence.

You also don't understand Creation at all, because you state that it's rediculous that God would want animals to have a good time, or to function properly... no McStone that's not dumb... that's very intelligent actually... why make something that doesn't function properly??? McStone... it is you who have made the rediculous statement with no thought at all this time, because it is quite clear that the Bible states that God called His creation good. Obviously you missed that.


Last time i looked, there wasnt actually THAT much to creation... just:

GOD-----> BANNNNNGGGGGGG ------> the entire universe

...the Bible states...


Yes, if only the bible was, what is that word??? oh yes, A BOOK, and one, moreover, not necessarily containing an accurate description of the natural world. I must have missed that one. How could i have been so stupid? - Imagine not actually taking words written over 2000 words ago as above criticism (because they are "Gods words", apparently). I mean, we do the same with every other historical document, right? Its almost as if im actually trying to understand the Natural world as it is, and not actually as interpreted through a few sentences, written down, as you'll concede, by humans. Its not as if humans have an imagination at all, is it?

How YEC has the sheer nerve to portray itself as a science ill never know; its ignorance wrapped up in fear, fear that the religion one may have spent a whole lifetime believing is wrong (or at least, due for a retooling).


So you believe that randomly, but not randomly because the ecosystem that an organism lives in... eyes and ears were produced... oh I get it. It's the same thing as saying... Lemmings keep falling off cliffs, therefore they need to evolve wings, because their ecology demands it... so random mutations will get randomly selected, and one day... they will have wings because their environment demands it.


Let me spell it out as simply as i can scott, because you really dont get it. But you've got to think about what you are saying before you write. READ ABOUT EVOLUTION

Lemmings jumping off a cliff die, because gravity brings them onto the sharp rocks below. Lemmings wont evolve wings because deliberately jumping to their death doesnt actually have any influence on the next generation, other then aborting it. If they reproduce before jumping, their children will not be selected for the ability to fly (because being able to fly or not is not going to stop the offspring reaching maturity and reproducing). If they jump before reproducing, the lemmings, perpetuating the whole "lemmings commit suicide cliche", will eventually cause a population crash, and go extinct.

This is because natural selection works from conception, all the way to the successful rearing of a new generation. After this time, it doesnt actually give a buggery what happens. "Death" has never been a selective pressure, because it just kills everything before adaptation can occur. If life has a purpose, it is producing more life.

Natural selection works on anything that causes an inequality in eventual reproductive success. Dying doesnt do that, because death causes universal failure in reproductive success. Dont get caught out by "survival", when its "reproduction" that is important.

If the lemmings in your example were to evolve wings (they never would, a whole variety of other ecological reasons), the selective pressure would have to be far far more moderate. As with birds, perhaps "wings" could evolve first for a signalling purpose or something similar. Female preference, for instance, may evolve for larger skin flaps under the arms in males. In turn, the lemmings may evolve a more aboreal existence, and the skin flaps help them glide from tree to tree quickly.

In answer to your question, Mutation, meiosis and drift are random; these are things that create or remove new variation. Natural selection isnt random, however. Natural selection directs this variation to one direction or another. This is because natural selection works on inequalities in reproductive fitness; the proliferation of an allele. If an allele enhances reproductive success (the number and vitality of offspring), the frequency of the allele in a population will increase, (because more individuals - more offspring- have this allele, and so on). The population is said to evolve.

(Natural selection isnt random but its not guided either. It works like a sieve).

#12 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 31 March 2010 - 03:35 PM

It's not a question of benefit, it's a question of how it would know of "sight" or "hearing" if they don't already exist.

View Post

Again, it is not the advantage that is in question - it is the "knowing" of the advantage.

View Post

I’m assuming you’re referring to zooplankton (or the hypothetical organism) in my example? It doesn’t have to know that it has an advantage in order to use it. It instinctually spends its time searching for food. Dark spots=food. We’re not talking about intelligent animals that relate to other members of their population. Plankton swim, eat, poop and reproduce. That’s about it. If one can eat more efficiently, it will be more likely to survive times or shortage or competition.

Actually, they could not have evolved from a pre-existing structure(A claim with no evidence either) because the brain needs to change as well, in order to be able to accommodate this new source of information.

View Post

Well as you go on to point out, the first organisms were not very complex and didn’t have brains. Keep in mind that “sight” is really just the ability to detect photons. You obviously need a brain to form a complex image, but to see light and dark all you need are neurons with light-sensitive pigments. Same could be said about sound, which is just the detection of pressure changes.

But if the first organisms did not have taste, smell, hearing, or eyes, I don't see the need for a brain. Worms do just fine without a brain, but they do not have any of those.

View Post

Worms do have a cerebral ganglion, and while it may not be a brain I don’t know where you got the idea that they lack sensory neurons. Even the most primitive group of worms, the platyhelminthes, have eyes and chemoreceptors (ie. they can taste and smell).

#13 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 03:35 PM

The most basic kind of eye is a simple light sensitive cell. Phototaxis: Movement away from light. Organisms with a light sensitive cell can detect when light is present or absent, and react accordingly.

That an organism has this "basic...eye" doesn't answer the question. Why, or rather how did it know it needed this "eye"?

Having light sensitive cell (in reality, a cell containing a pigment that breaks down in light, thereby inducing an action potential), is very very simple. This has been evolved in a lab over a few generations (and this would indeed qualify as macrevolution)....

hmmm, in a lab - must be at least some intelligence involved ;)

          Same story with hearing....

Same objection, why/how?

Try this:

Flick your chin, ...

I have no reason to do this, I know I have ears! B)

The rest of your post is just evo'babble;
"natural selection" directing variation sounds, well, like "guidance". :o

How can something be "self-promoting" without intelligence?
(rhetorical, just in case you thought I wasn't thinking again)

#14 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:06 PM

Keep in mind that “sight” is really just the ability to detect photons. You obviously need a brain to form a complex image, but to see light and dark all you need are neurons with light-sensitive pigments. Same could be said about sound, which is just the detection of pressure changes.


Equivocation will get you nowhere. You can try, but you will not try to redefine sight.

Worms do have a cerebral ganglion, and while it may not be a brain


I know this. It is not a brain.

I don’t know where you got the idea that they lack sensory neurons.


Where did I say that? I said that they don't have a brain. They can live without their "brain" as well, just fine.

Even the most primitive group of worms, the platyhelminthes, have eyes and chemoreceptors (ie. they can taste and smell).


They do not have eyes. They have photoreceptors. That is not sight. That is sensing light, and as worms demonstrate, a brain is not needed for reaction to those.

I was wrong about the taste and smell thing, but the sight and hearing points still stand.

I’m assuming you’re referring to zooplankton (or the hypothetical organism) in my example? It doesn’t have to know that it has an advantage in order to use it. It instinctually spends its time searching for food. Dark spots=food. We’re not talking about intelligent animals that relate to other members of their population. Plankton swim, eat, poop and reproduce. That’s about it. If one can eat more efficiently, it will be more likely to survive times or shortage or competition.


But it cannot construct an image. It can only sense how dark or light its surroundings are. That is nowhere near complex sight.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:23 PM

McStone, you proved my point in your post.

Death proves my point, and Death proves that evolution cannot actually happen! Amazing, because the genes cannot thus be passed on.

It's the same thing for any animal that supposedly was guided/unguided to get wings... they had to be selected, but you are going way too far into Lamarkian type evolution.

To believe evolution, you have to believe that there was a random mutation for the nub, that would begin the wing.

Then you would have to believe there was a random mutation for the bones in that nub for the wing.

Then you would have to believe there was a random mutation for the muscles and tendons for that wing.

Then you would have to believe there was a random mutation for the feathers on the wing itself.

It gets more unbelievable the further you go, because you would have to believe that out of every 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutation that each part was produced, that then rare mutation would have to survive the breeding process, and then it would have to do the 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations agian to get the next part for the wing... then it would have to yet again pass the breeding process. Or you could believe that the wing somehow was randomly mutated as one piece... which is quite unbelievable by far, and goes against decent with modification... (evolution). Seeing as how Death is still a major factor, and that these mutations really don't help the creature in this evolutionary stage... the chances get even slimer.

If something is random, it cannot thus be... none random, but evolutionist will go the extra length to illogically state that something that's random can also be guided... which goes against the actual term random.

This thread also fits nicely to why do flowers have beautiful colors to attract birds and bee's...

You will notice that flowers don't have eye's, therefore they don't know any type of need to select a random mutation for pretty petals, and they also most likely don't know that pretty colors even exist, they don't have brains.

You will also notice that flowers don't have brains to tell them they need thorns either, but you will go the extra length to tell me that they were randomly/none-randomly selected.

Design, it's just extremely obvious to the person who uses their Eyes, and Ears.

#16 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:24 PM

Ah yes, the good old argument from incredulity.

There's plenty of literature about the evolution of the eye. Is it really that crazy that a group of photosensitive cells would advantageous??? Not only that, but it's quite obvious the eye evolved multiple times.

#17 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:45 PM

Ah yes, the good old argument from incredulity. 

There's plenty of literature about the evolution of the eye.  Is it really that crazy that a group of photosensitive cells would advantageous???  Not only that, but it's quite obvious the eye evolved multiple times.

View Post


By using this logic, we can also say that the wing evolved multiple times, as well as legs, and tails.

Simply by using homology... we can see the relations in everthing.

#18 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 31 March 2010 - 06:28 PM

They do not have eyes. They have photoreceptors. That is not sight. That is sensing light, and as worms demonstrate, a brain is not needed for reaction to those.

View Post


If you want to define sight as being able to see a complex image, and eyes as something more than just photoreceptors, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. But those aren’t the definitions I would use. As far as I’m concerned, if you are able to detect changes in visible light, you have “eyes” and you can “see”. So yes, I think flatworms have eyes.

But it cannot construct an image. It can only sense how dark or light its surroundings are. That is nowhere near complex sight.

View Post

We’re not talking about complex sight. We’re discussing how and why eyes might have evolved, which means we need to start at the most basic level. As I pointed out in my example about zooplankton, even eyes that can only discern bright and dim are better than no eyes at all.

#19 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2010 - 06:36 PM

If you want to define sight as being able to see a complex image, and eyes as something more than just photoreceptors, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. But those aren’t the definitions I would use. As far as I’m concerned, if you are able to detect changes in visible light, you have “eyes” and you can “see”. So yes, I think flatworms have eyes.


Sight is the ability to construct an image using organs that do so. Flatworms have photosensitive cells that tell it whether it is in light or dark areas.
That's my definition, but you can use yours if you want, it doesn't really matter in the point I'm about to bring up.

It is obviously not a system that can form in a single mutation. It would also require a link to the nervous system.
Speaking of which, the link is required for the "eye" to be useful. The "eye" is required for the link to be useful, unless the link connected to something else. In which case, it isn't connected to the "eye."

So evolution is in a sort of dilemma here. Without a nerve connecting the eye to the nervous system, it is useless. Without the eye, there would be no reason for a nerve to form to connect to nothing.

If the eye is a modification of an existing cell, it would require an opening as well, at the same time as the mutation, for the eye to actually see.

#20 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 31 March 2010 - 06:42 PM

This thread also fits nicely to why do flowers have beautiful colors to attract birds and bee's...

You will notice that flowers don't have eye's, therefore they don't know any type of need to select a random mutation for pretty petals, and they also most likely don't know that pretty colors even exist, they don't have brains.

View Post



Flowers need bees to transfer pollen. No bees = no reproduction = no passing on of genes. Bees pick out bright colored flowers to land on, which means those flowers are essentially chosen to reproduce. Look at the changes humans have produced in plants through artificial selection. Obviously bees aren’t trying to breed pretty flowers, they’re just looking for some nectar. But the end result is the same as artificial selection.

I recommend the book The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins. He devotes a whole chapter to the co-evolution of flowers and pollinators. Unlike his other books, this book is devoted to evidence for evolution rather than religious/political opinions. I’m not suggesting it because I want to convert you, but hey it’s always good to now the opposition in a debate right? I read/watch creationist stuff all the time.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users