For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Astrid]

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?

How do you then test your hypothesis?

A good start is to examine eyes of other animals
that show the intermediate stages from a single cell
creature that can detect and move away from light,
on up through more complex ones.
That is high school biology in Hong Kong

 

[Buzzard3]

Why are your questions so old and answered.

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

Anyone can dream up a hypothesis about how an eye lense might have evolved, but how does one test their hypothesis?

 

[Buzzard3]

A good start is to examine eyes of other animals
that show the intermediate stages from a single cell
creature that can detect and move away from light,
on up through more complex ones.
That is high school biology in Hong Kong

And how does one test one's hypothesis?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anyone can dream up a hypothesis about how an eye lense might have evolved, but how does one test their hypothesis?

Read up, buttercup!

You keep asking these basic questions you haven't bothered to checkout for yourselves. We are not you researchers. Do the work.

 

[Buzzard3]

You dont know?
Intelligent design is one

What is dishonest about assessing the evidence and coming to the conclusion of intelligent design?

 

[Buzzard3]

That is how you deny the inherent dishonesty of evolution news?

Each persons work can be examined on its own, but EN
or AIG etc will only quote mine or use biased / dishonest work
such as from Kurt Wise.
That you have the sophistication to know that is clearly revealed
by your going to EN for your quote mine.

Please provide an example of an article published by evolutionnews.org which employs dishonest quotes or dishonest work.

 

[Buzzard3]

Read up, buttercup!

You keep asking these basic questions you haven't bothered to checkout for yourselves. We are not you researchers. Do the work.

I can find hypotheses that attempt to explain the evolution of the eye lense, but have yet to come across any method for testing any of those hypotheses ... which is hardly surprising, since I would imagine any test to be impossible.

But this doesn't stop Darwinsts inventing countless tales about how this or that evolved. They just love their pseudo-scientific stories.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can find hypotheses that attempt to explain the evolution of the eye lense, but have yet to come across any method for testing any of those hypotheses ... which is hardly surprising, since I would imagine any test to be impossible.

But this doesn't stop Darwinsts inventing countless tales about how this or that evolved. They just love their pseudo-scientific stories.

Sounds like you're still at the rather superficial level. Keep digging.

 

[Astrid]

What is dishonest about assessing the evidence and coming to the conclusion of intelligent design?

Ya know, the blaster actually gave you some good
advice, you should trying some of thst autodidact stuff.

Ive done it to some effect.

The game " ask a 10 th grade science q.,
and then I tale time to respond, you ignore it and
spend seconds on another question " well, thats like you
throw a ball for me to fetch. I dont like that game,
so no deal.

 

[Buzzard3]

Sounds like you're still at the rather superficial level. Keep digging.

Wishful thinking is a poor substitute for science.
Have a look for yourself ... if you dare.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Shemjaza]

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?

How do you then test your hypothesis?

Here's a run down on eye development and variation: The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd | Eye

Do we have specific examples as to the exact steps of vertebrate eye evolution? No. But we don't need it if we have evidence.

Now we have the genetic makeup of modern animals, and we can demonstrate how they vary from generation to generation. We can then look at fossils and other varieties of extant life to see if they match the predictions of the behavior we observe.

Now given that we have significant varieties of eyes in the animal kingdom we can examine how functional a partially developed eye would be and how available the new variations are.

For example the lenses found in most vertebrates are formed from a close variation of the heat shock proteins that vertebrate cells already form for other coverings and insulation.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Shemjaza]

To,the tune of " take my breath away"

You're wasting your time
Ime ime ime

I agree, but I'm easily goaded into explanations if it really isn't that complicated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wishful thinking is a poor substitute for science.
Have a look for yourself ... if you dare.

Since all you have are standard anti-evolution tropes, I'm not sure how much I could do to persuade you. I've given the standard replies and waited (successfully) for someone with specific knowledge to reply. (I have no reason to think you will actually consider it, but whatever.)

Now, if you want to say something ridiculous about physics in a non-evolution thread you may get a different response from me.

[I have nothing to be scared of in the evolutionary history of the eye. I've read some stuff and it sounds pretty reasonable to me. No threats to my "worldview" there...]

 

[Buzzard3]

On fossils predating the Cambrian explosion, of which there are more and more being published on every year, though in defense of naysayers, these discoveries are relatively recent.

Why I don't believe in evolution...

But are they filling the gaps? That's the question.
Some of the claims of "transitionals" I've seen are laughable.

 

[Buzzard3]

You ignored most of what i asked

Sorry if I haven't got around to answering all your queries. My fragile, eggshell mind struggles to keep up with the plethora of demands for explanations.

My other excuse is that most of my epistles are penned on a phone, which is kinda slow and tedious.

 

[Buzzard3]

Is every new subtle variation of an existing family or clade just miracled into the world over the eons?

Microevolutions can be adequately explained by ToE , but as for the major changes in life-forms, I don't have any explanation other than "God done it."

I don't attempt to explain the history of life on earth - it's unknowable. We can't even be certain of WHAT happened, so it's pointless trying to explain HOW it happened.

However, I do accept that the Modern Synthesis is the best scientific explanation yet proposed ... not that I think it adequately accounts for the history of life ... not even close.

 

[Job 33:6]

But are they filling the gaps? That's the question.
Some of the claims of "transitionals" I've seen are laughable.

They are. For example, Claudina of the precambrian for example, would be early annelid bilaterians, transitional precursors to metazoan bilaterians today. They also are of the earliest shelled organisms we know of with evidence of predation, backing the evolutionary arms race explanation for why the ediacaran and Cambrian explosions occurred (along with climate related changes such as the rifting of rodinia and end of snowball earth).

View attachment 315096

Here is my table again as well. We see that animals sick as Poriferan, Cnidaria, xenaceolomorpha, and Annelida are known to pre exist the Cambrian explosion via the fossil record while several others are contested. The reason so many are contested is because once you get into the precambrian, you end up with animals that could very well be in two or more different phlya.

But ultimately, it's worth just understanding that the Cambrian explosion is unique in that it displays increased fossilization due to arms race enduced evolution of dense attack and defence capabilities/hard parts (shells, teeth, jaws etc.).

But the evolution and "appearance" of things that fossilize more readily should not be confused with the actual appearance of life in a broader sense.

 

[Shemjaza]

Microevolutions can be adequately explained by ToE , but as for the major changes in life-forms, I don't have any explanation other than "God done it."

Can you give a specific example of an evolutionary change that can not be broken down into micro steps?

I don't attempt to explain the history of life on earth - it's unknowable. We can't even be certain of WHAT happened, so it's pointless trying to explain HOW it happened.

That's your assertion, and yet the evidence still exists and can be analysed.

However, I do accept that the Modern Synthesis is the best scientific explanation yet proposed ... not that I think it adequately accounts for the history of life ... not even close.

So justify that.

Religious conviction and personal emotional reactions are not evidence.

You declared that you accept the evidence for evolution, but don't accept the extrapolation onto longer time scales... if you want to claim it to be impossible, you aught to justify it.