eye evolution

[RTooty]

The evolution of the eye is another flaw in Evolutionary theory. You concoct an "experiment" and boom your detractors accuse you of a PRATT. The only difference is that evolutionists have a mighty army of researchers and funding to get their point across. Take for example the supposed evolution of the eye. This is a problem that evolution can't explain. Watch this video & you'll see what I mean. youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MmYBMOXj0&feature=related

The problem is that the guy goes a little out of order in the whole scientific method and reverses his studies to prove his point. Usually "draws a conclusion" happens at the end but he is working backwards. Try and tell me he did the research with an open mind and I will call you a liar... liar.

When you work that way its just amazing how data can just appear to support your conclusion. It's also nice that his explanation is unable to be replicated so nobody can refute his "research."

Even the computer diagrams are hillarious. How convenient that part of the transparent liquid became denser to make a lens. On video it only took 2 seconds (computer animations rule!). Lets say it evolved. During that evolving state to make the lens wouldn't it make the eye useless. Logic is completely thrown out of this work.

No where does it mention the complex changes required in the DNA for these adaptations to happen. Did our code say "Wait, I know what I've been missing. Lets create a depression to better capture light. From this day forth all light sensitive cells shall have a depression." If that were the case we should have eyes all over our body. Why just stop at the front of the head. Why not evolve them in the back of the head. Maybe if the Neanderthals had eyes in the back of their heads they could see the Sapiens coming from behind with our clubs.

My favorite part is the end where the narrator said "the eye COULD have evolved from natural selection."
He didn't even have the testicular fortitude to claim that it did.

Go ahead and throw the word PRATT around all you want to intimidate non-believers. Who has the pseudoscience? Not the ID guys. We call it like we see it. So make all your colorful diagrams and draw images of God pooping out animals from the sky. It's all the same to me. You are so afraid of science that you throw PRATT around to avoid digging for the truth.

 

[RTooty]

The problem is that the guy goes a little out of order in the whole scientific method and reverses his studies to prove his point. Usually "draws a conclusion" happens at the end but he is working backwards. Try and tell me he did the research with an open mind and I will call you a liar... liar.

When you work that way its just amazing how data can just appear to support your conclusion. It's also nice that his explanation is unable to be replicated so nobody can refute his "research."

Even the computer diagrams are hillarious. How convenient that part of the transparent liquid became denser to make a lens. On video it only took 2 seconds (computer animations rule!). Lets say it evolved. During that evolving state to make the lens wouldn't it make the eye useless. Logic is completely thrown out of this work.

No where does it mention the complex changes required in the DNA for these adaptations to happen. Did our code say "Wait, I know what I've been missing. Lets create a depression to better capture light. From this day forth all light sensitive cells shall have a depression." If that were the case we should have eyes all over our body. Why just stop at the front of the head. Why not evolve them in the back of the head. Maybe if the Neanderthals had eyes in the back of their heads they could see the Sapiens coming from behind with our clubs.

My favorite part is the end where the narrator said "the eye COULD have evolved from natural selection."
He didn't even have the testicular fortitude to claim that it did.

Go ahead and throw the word PRATT around all you want to intimidate non-believers. Who has the pseudoscience? Not the ID guys. We call it like we see it. So make all your colorful diagrams and draw images of God pooping out animals from the sky. It's all the same to me. You are so afraid of science that you throw PRATT around to avoid digging for the truth.

 

[Molal]

Do you have any data to negate the model?

 

[Blackrend]

I am assuming you like to use the argument that "the eye is too complex to be formed through evolution".

In reality, forming an eye isn't as difficult as you would think. There are thousands of different types of eyes, all with varying degrees of complexity. The simplest of eyes are but a cluster of light-sensitive cells, as seen in the flatworm. Some eyes can only detect in black and white, or limited color, while others are capable of detecting more colors than even humans can see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duBW9QabXfw

 

[Split Rock]

The problem is that the guy goes a little out of order in the whole scientific method and reverses his studies to prove his point. Usually "draws a conclusion" happens at the end but he is working backwards. Try and tell me he did the research with an open mind and I will call you a liar... liar.

OK ... He did the research with an open mind. Call me a "Liar...liar" and I will Report you.

When you work that way its just amazing how data can just appear to support your conclusion. It's also nice that his explanation is unable to be replicated so nobody can refute his "research."

Why can't you replicate his research with your own ping pong balls, etc. Or maybe you could actually study the eyes of other organisms such as flatworms, limpets, mollusks, etc., that have simpler eyes than ours. Or is that too much like "research" for a creationist like you to handle?

Even the computer diagrams are hillarious. How convenient that part of the transparent liquid became denser to make a lens. On video it only took 2 seconds (computer animations rule!). Lets say it evolved. During that evolving state to make the lens wouldn't it make the eye useless. Logic is completely thrown out of this work.

How so, if the liquid were a little bit denser, it would from a sharper image than before. That is the whole point.

No where does it mention the complex changes required in the DNA for these adaptations to happen. Did our code say "Wait, I know what I've been missing. Lets create a depression to better capture light. From this day forth all light sensitive cells shall have a depression." If that were the case we should have eyes all over our body. Why just stop at the front of the head. Why not evolve them in the back of the head. Maybe if the Neanderthals had eyes in the back of their heads they could see the Sapiens coming from behind with our clubs.

Do you understand how Natural Selection works? If a mutation provides a benefit in a given environment, then it will be selected for and the new allele (gene variant) with increase in frequency in the population. The rest of your question is silly, so I will ignore it.

My favorite part is the end where the narrator said "the eye COULD have evolved from natural selection."
He didn't even have the testicular fortitude to claim that it did.

He is telling the truth. Theories in science (unlike creationism) are always tentative.

Go ahead and throw the word PRATT around all you want to intimidate non-believers. Who has the pseudoscience? Not the ID guys. We call it like we see it. So make all your colorful diagrams and draw images of God pooping out animals from the sky. It's all the same to me. You are so afraid of science that you throw PRATT around to avoid digging for the truth.

Unfortunately for ID, all that is required to to show that the vertebrate eye could have evolved. This is because ID uses a Negative Argument; that the eye could not have evolved, therefore the eye must have (by default) been intelligently designed.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The evolution of the eye is another flaw in Evolutionary theory. You concoct an "experiment" and boom your detractors accuse you of a PRATT. The only difference is that evolutionists have a mighty army of researchers and funding to get their point across. Take for example the supposed evolution of the eye. This is a problem that evolution can't explain. Watch this video & you'll see what I mean.

The problem is that the guy goes a little out of order in the whole scientific method and reverses his studies to prove his point. Usually "draws a conclusion" happens at the end but he is working backwards. Try and tell me he did the research with an open mind and I will call you a liar... liar.

When you work that way its just amazing how data can just appear to support your conclusion. It's also nice that his explanation is unable to be replicated so nobody can refute his "research."

Even the computer diagrams are hillarious. How convenient that part of the transparent liquid became denser to make a lens. On video it only took 2 seconds (computer animations rule!). Lets say it evolved. During that evolving state to make the lens wouldn't it make the eye useless. Logic is completely thrown out of this work.

No where does it mention the complex changes required in the DNA for these adaptations to happen. Did our code say "Wait, I know what I've been missing. Lets create a depression to better capture light. From this day forth all light sensitive cells shall have a depression." If that were the case we should have eyes all over our body. Why just stop at the front of the head. Why not evolve them in the back of the head. Maybe if the Neanderthals had eyes in the back of their heads they could see the Sapiens coming from behind with our clubs.

My favorite part is the end where the narrator said "the eye COULD have evolved from natural selection."
He didn't even have the testicular fortitude to claim that it did.

Go ahead and throw the word PRATT around all you want to intimidate non-believers. Who has the pseudoscience? Not the ID guys. We call it like we see it. So make all your colorful diagrams and draw images of God pooping out animals from the sky. It's all the same to me. You are so afraid of science that you throw PRATT around to avoid digging for the truth.

It's a PRATT because eye evolution has been explained and explained and explained and explained and we can give you more videos that explain it too. This isnt about intimidation, it's about a clear ignorance of evolution, biology, and science in general. it depends on whether you are truly willing to hear the answers to your questions or if you are just hear to rant handwave and move goalposts. videos like that quite exsquisitely explain not only what science says but why it says it.

The specific DNA mutation, while interesting isnt entirely necessary. especially since it occurred multiple times and was the result of different mutations at different times in different lineages. nature selects based on the manifestation of the mutation, not the mutation itself.

 

[lawtonfogle]

<snip so I wont' double post video>

Wow, thanks. I have always wondered how current theories say the eye evolved. I knew they started with photosensitive cells, but that was all I knew. Thanks for finding me this video... now I have more information.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I understand you may feel like we are trying to intimidate you. after all everything you post will get at least 3 long responses that include a lot of language and concepts that you may not fully understand. We are trying to correct mistakes that you have made and tell you what science actually says and often your posts are filled with so many inaccuracies that each point requires more than a few sentences of explanation. The purpose for many of us is education and defense of science and reality as we can best determine it.

 

[TheGnome]

Hell, Charles Darwin gave a scenario of how an eye could have arisen through natural selection in his book The Origin of Species.

The crazy thing is, our eyes are wired backwards and gives us a blind spot, whereas an octopus has superior eyes. In terms of intelligent design, an octopus' eyes are more intelligently designed than a human's.

A good textbook I'd recommend you to read for a good basic understanding of evolution is: Evolutionary Analysis. I used the book for a class in organic evolution. It appears that you haven't done any reading at all.

 

[Bombila]

I understand you may feel like we are trying to intimidate you. after all everything you post will get at least 3 long responses that include a lot of language and concepts that you may not fully understand. We are trying to correct mistakes that you have made and tell you what science actually says and often your posts are filled with so many inaccuracies that each point requires more than a few sentences of explanation. The purpose for many of us is education and defense of science and reality as we can best determine it.

Something like this post should be placed at the top of the forum (along with some Creationist statement, I suppose, for fairness, given it is C&E). So many creationists seem to be so woefully uneducated in biology, geology and other sciences, and so unfamiliar with the natural world, that they are totally out of their depth when they question evolution. Unfortunately, they often have seen some PRATT at some creation-friendly site, think it sounds logical, eagerly don spiritual armour and head off to the nearest evolutionary windmill farm, and end up retreating when they find not only doesn't their PRATT work, but they haven't the knowledge to even argue about it.

I have a suspicion that, despite the common notion that creationists as a rule are rural, most creationists are from towns and cities. I can't imagine how a person could grow up rural, observing the natural world, and not recognize how well the concepts of an ancient earth and the evolution of plants and animals fit what we see.

 

[consol]

Try and tell me he did the research with an open mind and I will call you a liar... liar.

You are absolutely right, he did not do his research with an open mind,
he did not take into account the Whiskered Fortans from Valon, or the Great Giant Teapot,
why? because they have never been proven to exist,
do you know of others he did not take into account? have they been proven to exist?

The man can only work with the facts he has at his disposal,
dreams, hopes and wishes mean nothing when you are trying to gain REAL knowledge,
of course, he could have just sat on his backside and said, 'Goddidit', and left it at that.

 

[29apples]

I just finished a rotation in a molecular biology lab that is interested in vision. I was actually talking about this exact same subject with a PhD candidate. Apparently the lens in the bovine eye is the same protein that is found in the body (liver I think) with 2 amino acids substitutions. FYI that is potentially two base pair substitutions (at most 6) out of roughly 1200 base pairs. Not far fetched in the slightest amount.

A simple search of "eye lens molecular homology" might reveal some insight.

 

[huldah153]

The 'half-an-eye' argument is a misnomer. There's no such thing as 'half-an-eye' because the most primitive eyes can't be pared down into non-functionalism. Even the shoddiest eye imaginable sill acts like an eye. You could argue that a designer made it that way, but naturally the chemicals that the proto-eyes are made of tend to cluster together.

 

[MewtwoX]

I just finished a rotation in a molecular biology lab that is interested in vision. I was actually talking about this exact same subject with a PhD candidate. Apparently the lens in the bovine eye is the same protein that is found in the body (liver I think) with 2 amino acids substitutions. FYI that is potentially two base pair substitutions (at most 6) out of roughly 1200 base pairs. Not far fetched in the slightest amount.

A simple search of "eye lens molecular homology" might reveal some insight.

Do they consider the genesis of these genes an example of the Duplication-Degeneration-Complementation (DDC) model?

 

[tcampen]

Go ahead and throw the word PRATT around all you want to intimidate non-believers. Who has the pseudoscience? Not the ID guys. We call it like we see it. So make all your colorful diagrams and draw images of God pooping out animals from the sky. It's all the same to me. You are so afraid of science that you throw PRATT around to avoid digging for the truth.

Creationists still seem to think that a supposed gap in knowledge within evolutionary theory is in someway evidence for ID...er... creationism. No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Goddidit crowd needs a "come to Jesus" moment about science. But if this is is still "calling it as you see it", then maybe you need some glasses for your so "intellegently" designed eyes.

 

[Danyc]

Rtooty, what you fail to understand is that you are allowed to switch around the scientific method. Normally it is wrong to draw conclusions first. However, if your objective is simply to prove that something could have evolved, then, by definition, you must start off by drawing a conclusion.

You must start with the assumption that the eye evolved, and then find a way it could have evolved. Once you find a way it could have evolved, the claim "The eye is too complex to have evolved", is incorrect, and has been refuted, as has been done here. Actually, itwas done 150 years ago with Darwin's publication of Origin of Species.

This is because, if a statement is made saying that something can't happen...well, if you show it can happen, that's all you need. That was the whole point.

 

[Kyrisch]

Plus, he wasn't going "hmm, I need such and such to get to the human eye -- this could probably work" with the deeper eyes, the lenses, the irises, et cetera. He found examples of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE INTERMEDIATE STEPS in nature.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Your right RTooty, that was a great video, the guy blew the creationist claims of ID concerning the eye out of the water, in two minutes, with a piece of cardboard, and a flashlight. Fantastic, keep em' coming.

 

[NailsII]

RTooty, you appear to be an intelligent person who is challanging things they have little knowledge of.

Just take a few moments and sit down, thinking about this one.
As has been mentioned, an octopus has a better 'designed' eye then humans.

Not only so our eyes suck, we only have a short band of visual acuity - both in terms of the band of light we see and the area we can focus on.
The focal point at the back of our eyes is called the fovea, and it is not really that good. Think how often you are in a car and you only see a vehicle coming towards you/across you at a junction because you looked twice. And then suppose you saw the the vehicle subliminary in the less well focussed area of your eyes because it is better at seeing moving objects....

Or recount how many times you have been fooled - even momentarily - by a magician or conjourer, even an optical illusion.

Our eyes suck and the brain is barely up to the job of providing us with a really accurate visual map of our surroundings - especially when really tired. Have you ever had momentary hallucinations when you're really tired? Mistook an bit of fluff for a huge spider? Happened to me loads of times when I worked nights.

So think about it, and then reconcile how a perfect omnipotent being could make such a shoddy job of designing a visual system. I'd wager you could design a better system on paper yourself.

 

[Morcova]

The only difference is that evolutionists have a mighty army of researchers and funding to get their point across.

Well if creationists stopped making movies and board games maybe they could get around to doing some actual science.