| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
30th November 2005, 03:16 PM
| | Junior Member
8   
| | Join Date: 22nd November 2005
Posts: 23
Blessings: 85,388
Reps: 74 (power: 0) | | | Can someone explain evolution of the eye?
I'm believe in evolution, don't worry about that. I actually think the scientific method is sound. At the same time, I don't study evolutionary theory or biology so the sources for such knowledge aren't readily available to me. I'd like someone to point me to info about evolution of the eye because I'm sure it's a case of PRATT.
Here is something I have and I can refute it based simple logical fallacies of the argument, but I would like some more concrete explanation of how the process is actually believed to have come about that would also incorporate the logical fallacies and explain why they're wrong.
Thanks. Here's what I have never understood about evolution. Take the example of the human eyeball. The eyeball has many many different sets of filters and things that have to line up exactly right or else it won't work. According to the theory of evolution, a baby millions of years ago would have had to been born with an already fully developed modern eyeball or else it wouldn't have worked. If it didn't work, it would be useless, and the mutation would have been ignored and the eye would never have been formed.
If a baby was born with a less developed version of the human eyeball, it WOULDN"T WORK. Thus, it would be of no use to the child whatsoever, if anything a hinderance, so according to the theory of evolution the mutation wouldn't last.  |
30th November 2005, 03:27 PM
|  | Veteran
 
| | Join Date: 13th May 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 1,786
Blessings: 92,373
Reps: 349 (power: 0) | | | One of cleverlutions stigmas... :)
Originally Posted by NinjaTurtles2 I'm believe in evolution, don't worry about that. I actually think the scientific method is sound. At the same time, I don't study evolutionary theory or biology so the sources for such knowledge aren't readily available to me. I'd like someone to point me to info about evolution of the eye because I'm sure it's a case of PRATT.
Here is something I have and I can refute it based simple logical fallacies of the argument, but I would like some more concrete explanation of how the process is actually believed to have come about that would also incorporate the logical fallacies and explain why they're wrong.
Thanks.
Through the process of natural selection the co-dependent systems and individual parts of the eye could not have evolved. The eye is one of the unexplainable 'stigmas' of the theory of cleverlution. 
--------------------------------------- |
30th November 2005, 03:31 PM
| | Veteran
31
| | Join Date: 24th October 2005
Posts: 1,512
Blessings: 351,450
Reps: 2,912,368,026,437 (power: 2,912,368,034) | | Originally Posted by Edmond Through the process of natural selection the co-dependent systems and individual parts of the eye could not have evolved. The eye is one of the unexplainable 'stigmas' of the theory of cleverlution.
---------------------------------------
Except for all those intermediate stages that are predicted to exist, and hey what do you know, are visible on extant creatures. Owned. |
30th November 2005, 03:32 PM
|  | with a Touch of Grey
48  
| | Join Date: 31st October 2003
Posts: 10,996
Blessings: 3,083,341 My Mood 
Reps: 56,658,641,732,305,168 (power: 56,658,641,732,324) | | Originally Posted by Edmond Through the process of natural selection the co-dependent systems and individual parts of the eye could not have evolved. The eye is one of the unexplainable 'stigmas' of the theory of cleverlution.
---------------------------------------
True, but evolution explains it quite nicely.
__________________
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln
They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Ben Franklin |
30th November 2005, 03:44 PM
|  | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,896
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Darwin summed it up best in "Origin of Species".
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-- Chapter IV
In this case, we do have most of the intermediates available for study today. Starting with single celled organisms we have very simple photosensitive spots that can only determine light and dark. Planarians (flat worms) have photosensitive spots located in two bilateral depressions. This allows them to discern which direction light is coming from. Obviously, there are many intermediate steps that are functional and advantageous, which fulfills the requirements set forth by Darwin.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
30th November 2005, 05:48 PM
|  | Trad Goth
41  
| | Join Date: 27th March 2004 Location: Durham
Posts: 2,843
Blessings: 80,982
Reps: 12,201 (power: 22) | | Originally Posted by Edmond The eye is one of the unexplainable 'stigmas' of the theory of cleverlution.
---------------------------------------
Except of course that it has been explained, often and simply.
Ghost
__________________
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. - Popper, Sir Karl
Science does not deal in metaphysics. The existence or non-existence of God is a metaphysical question, and as such science neither attempts to prove or disprove God. |
30th November 2005, 08:43 PM
|  | Eat your Wheaties and know your logical fallacies.
5 
 | | Join Date: 20th December 2003 Location: $1 reject store
Posts: 2,091
Blessings: 65,133
Reps: 2,781,141 (power: 2,792) | | | delete |
30th November 2005, 08:44 PM
| | Eat your Wheaties and know your logical fallacies.
5
| | Join Date: 20th December 2003 Location: $1 reject store
Posts: 2,091
Blessings: 65,133
Reps: 2,781,141 (power: 2,792) | | | |
30th November 2005, 09:10 PM
|  | A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
34 
| | Join Date: 18th July 2005 Location: Deep underground
Posts: 6,568
Blessings: 92,676 My Mood 
Reps: 36,217,039 (power: 36,230) | | "Filters and things"? If a baby was born with a less developed version of the human eyeball, it WOULDN"T WORK. Thus, it would be of no use to the child whatsoever, if anything a hinderance, so according to the theory of evolution the mutation wouldn't last.
That is just dumb. A baby born without cone cells, for example, would not see much detail at all but would readily notice movement and light intensity and, to some degree, shape.
It is absurdly easy to imagine how much value even the simplest eye would be compared to no eye.
__________________ "Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
I am Jack's total lack of god-belief.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
