Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,143
- 73
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
What is your explanation of a step by step Darwinian mechanism that can create an eye?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You keep claiming that structures with several parts cannot evolve stepwise, but you never give any reason and ignore all explanation of how it can happen. What do you think? That if you continue to deny it, it will go away?
Evolution of the eye - WikipediaWhat is your explanation of a step by step Darwinian mechanism that can create an eye?
What is your evidence that the structure of the eye was pre-programmed?What is your explanation of a step by step Darwinian mechanism that can create an eye?
He and Xianghua have already made it clear that they are under no obligation to produce any. All they need do is show that the evolutionary process is inadequate and "design" must be assumed as the only possible alternative.What is your evidence that the structure of the eye was pre-programmed?
He and Xianghua have already made it clear that they are under no obligation to produce any. All they need do is show that the evolutionary process is inadequate and "design" must be assumed as the only possible alternative.
Your other objections were pedestrian and predictable. This one seems bizarre. I have no idea what you are getting at.also that they ' have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times.'- i.e. not through common ancestry
Your other objections were pedestrian and predictable. This one seems bizarre. I have no idea what you are getting at.
So what does that have to do with the eye evolving more than once? Why would any of this pre-existing information have to stem from a single common ancestor?see above, this is key evidence for secular biologists who increasingly point to pre-existing information, often involving epigenetics to some degree, instructions on how to build eyes (and other organs) coming essentially pre-packaged, and enabled independently according to environmental triggers.
ie. NOT through incremental inherited advantage aka Darwinism.
Why not? Where is it supposed to have come from?ie. NOT through incremental inherited advantage aka Darwinism.
So what does that have to do with the eye evolving more than once? Why would any of this pre-existing information have to stem from a single common ancestor?
Why not? Where is it supposed to have come from?
When you wrote "All they need do is show that the evolutionary process is inadequate" I think you meant assert? Demand? Pretend? Fantasize?He and Xianghua have already made it clear that they are under no obligation to produce any. All they need do is show that the evolutionary process is inadequate and "design" must be assumed as the only possible alternative.
but this is the problem- even the simplest eye is too complex and contain several parts.
if so why complex animals evolved at all? they should stay as becteria too.
You keep claiming that structures with several parts cannot evolve stepwise, but you never give any reason and ignore all explanation of how it can happen.
Not quite true; complex eyes are first seen in the Cambrian (and have been suggested as one of the drivers of diversification in that period). Being soft tissue, eyes are very unlikely to be preserved, but the Cambrian sees the development of protective shells (protection from predators that can see?), which increases the likelihood of preservation of imprints of soft parts.It also concedes eyes appeared suddenly in the Cambrian (along with everything else)...
The genetic evidence is that complex, i.e. camera-like eyes evolved independently either from common simple precursor eyes, or re-purposing genes from an ancient genetic 'toolkit' comprising genes (including those coding for opsins and the like) that have found many different uses through evolutionary history, and consequently, are widely conserved....they ' have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times.'- i.e. not through common ancestry
It also concedes eyes appeared suddenly in the Cambrian
Nope! The simplest kind of eye is just a patch of skin that is sensitive to light.
see here:
Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia
"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins."
do you have any counter source?
...In some clitellates photoreceptor cells are distributed within the epithelium of the epidermis and do not co-occur with supporting pigment cells, and thus are only capable of sensing light and dark...
...These photoreceptor cells fall into a category called extraocular photoreceptor cells (EOCs), which have uncharacterized functions at this time...
...Dermal light cells or EOCs often do not even fall within traditional definitions of an eye or even a photoreceptor cell (Ramirez, Speiser, Pankey, & Oakley, 2011); however, they have been shown to mediate behavioral responses across many taxa, such as shadow and withdrawal responses...
...In annelids, these cells have also been shown to mediate withdrawal reflexes, escape, and orientation along the dorso-ventral axis and are present in both clitellates and polychaetes...
You need to remember that Chlamydomonas has been evolving for as long as we have.see here:
Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia
"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins."
Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'
Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.
Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:
Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".
Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.
From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:
"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.
That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.
Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.
You're going to have to move your goal posts. Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Those fruit-fly experimenters weren't attempting to produce new species.If it wasn't different you wouldn't need to be posting this. It's different in that macroevolution says animals can mutate so many times that they turn into a different species entirely. It's been proven that mutations have limits. When constantly mutating fruit flies, scientists found that the flies would at best get different color eyes or longer or shorter legs. After generations of mutating, the flies would eventually become so deformed that they are unable to reproduce or just die. So all subjects die long before becoming a new species. No study conducted has proven macromutation within the animal kingdom.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?