Macroevolution:

[xianghua]

I can't even look at this article's sources, much less finish it, without paying, so you better provide a primary source.

here:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-03-human-eyes-wired.html

Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision

so the claim about "flaw" isn't true.

Birds have the sharpest eyesight, able to see objects with the greatest clarity and at the greatest distances... so why not humans if they have the same designer?

why not? why we dont have wings or fins? the designer gave every creature his unique traits.

Check it out, the retina is towards the back of the eye, but the optic nerve doesn't need a hole in it, thus is not the source of a blind spot. So, the blind spot in human eyes is demonstrably unnecessary, even if you think the position of the retina towards the back of the eye is.

again- the same mystake. if scientists were wrong about this suppose backward retina they can be wrong about other traits too.

And there shouldn't be eyes wasted on organisms that don't even need to see, like bats.

actually some bats can see better then humans:

6 Bat Myths Busted: Are They Really Blind?

"Bigger bats "can see three times better than humans," Mies said."

 

[Loudmouth]

this isn't what you said here:

"If there were multiple such examples for homologous traits, this would falsify evolution"

so i gave you such a case.

Notice that I said trait, not gene.

 

[xianghua]

Notice that I said trait, not gene.

homologous trait base on homologous gene.

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually some bats can see better then humans:

6 Bat Myths Busted: Are They Really Blind?

"Bigger bats "can see three times better than humans," Mies said."

Sigh. I was talking about nocturnal bats that use echolocation. Not diurnal bats that don't. We've blindfolded nocturnal bats, and they maneuver around just as well as bats without blindfolds. So, why have eyes if they don't benefit from it?

 

[xianghua]

Sigh. I was talking about nocturnal bats that use echolocation. Not diurnal bats that don't. We've blindfolded nocturnal bats, and they maneuver around just as well as bats without blindfolds. So, why have eyes if they don't benefit from it?

it can be a degeneration by mutation. but it's not evolution. just a trait that have been lost.

 

[PsychoSarah]

it can be a degeneration by mutation. but it's not evolution. just a trait that have been lost.

-_- what? Nocturnal bats have functional eyes, they just demonstrably don't NEED the ability to see because their ability to echolocate renders it redundant. No loss of function in their eyes.

Also, loss of function is a component of evolution and can be beneficial. For example, there is at least 1 species of mole that is born without eyes, which means it doesn't waste energy on developing a structure it wouldn't use.

 

[Kylie]

Also, loss of function is a component of evolution and can be beneficial. For example, there is at least 1 species of mole that is born without eyes, which means it doesn't waste energy on developing a structure it wouldn't use.

And by not having eyes, it removes a part of the body which could become irritated or diseased.

And that's why they don't have eyes, because there is no evolutionary advantage to having eyes that aren't used, and a huge advantage to NOT having eyes if they aren't needed.

 

[Wakalix]

I believe that xianghua's point is that evolution needs to be shown to produce new traits instead of simply removing existing traits in order to explain the complexity of life.

 

[Wakalix]

it can be a degeneration by mutation. but it's not evolution. just a trait that have been lost.

This is a clear evasion. Sarah's point was that vestigial eyes seem to indicate evolution, as why would the Creator give out useless eyes?

 

[xianghua]

-_- what? Nocturnal bats have functional eyes, they just demonstrably don't NEED the ability to see because their ability to echolocate renders it redundant. No loss of function in their eyes.

why not? it can be for many reasons. here is one of them:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727203745.htm

"For bats, vision is important for foraging and homing, and for predator avoidance. Mesopic vision (at light levels that stimulate both the rods and the cones) is particularly relevant at dusk and dawn and on brightly moonlit nights. For flower-visiting and nectar-feeding bats like those studied here, UV vision should increase foraging success, as many flowers visited by bats show UV reflection."

 

[PsychoSarah]

why not? it can be for many reasons. here is one of them:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727203745.htm

"For bats, vision is important for foraging and homing, and for predator avoidance. Mesopic vision (at light levels that stimulate both the rods and the cones) is particularly relevant at dusk and dawn and on brightly moonlit nights. For flower-visiting and nectar-feeding bats like those studied here, UV vision should increase foraging success, as many flowers visited by bats show UV reflection."

-_- and what of the multitude of nocturnal bats that DON'T visit flowers? You could argue for predator avoidance for the rods of the eyes, but not the cones. In fact, the presence of cones limits how good night vision can be, because they take up space that could contain more rods.

-_- are you allergic to primary sources?

 

[xianghua]

-_- and what of the multitude of nocturnal bats that DON'T visit flowers? You could argue for predator avoidance for the rods of the eyes, but not the cones. In fact, the presence of cones limits how good night vision can be, because they take up space that could contain more rods.

first you talked about vision and now you are talking about specific trait in vision. as i said: there could be many reasons. we just need to do more research. and also: "The UV-sensitive cones may yield a number of advantages for bats, including improved visual orientation at twilight"

-_- are you allergic to primary sources?

what is wrong about sciencedaily? it is base on scientific papers so i dont see any problem.