the fact that organisms can see with eyes proves intelligent design

[EnemyPartyII]

organisms can't by evolution alone harness light waves into actual vision through evolution/natural selection/adaptation because light waves travel at one billion miles per second, if you were to ask an engineer to try and design a way to harness light waves into vision in a biological eyeball he wouldn't have a clue so how could evolution start from no vision to the human eye ball which can't be made any better happen?-This proves intelligent design.
Also what process of mutation/evolution could even think of a sense of sight being useful to the simple organism?

Along with all the other senses organisms have it makes it even more unlikely that adaptation gave us these abilities. Am i not right??

God created every creature.

To the PRATT mobile, lets go! Hovind batteries to power, Ham turbines to speed! Na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na, PRATT MAN!

 

[lukeman]

One of the best evidence that the eye does support ID is Dawkin's "The God Delusion". Dawkin would love to see strong evidence of the evolution of the eye as he would no doubt write a whole book rubbing it in our face. Since it seems from the beginning complex eye existed he had to settle with attacking theists head on.

cool.

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact that some organisms without eyes can detect light (and all sorts of intermediates between them and organisms with eyes) pretty much demolishes the notion of intelligent design.

 

[philadiddle]

The fact that some organisms without eyes can detect light (and all sorts of intermediates between them and organisms with eyes) pretty much demolishes the notion of intelligent design.

I think that the fact of evolution, which is detailed by the theory of evolution, pretty much demolishes the notion of intelligent design*.

*Intelligent design as the ID advocates such as the Discovery Institute portray it.

 

[suzmot]

how could evolution start from no vision to the human eye ball which can't be made any better happen?

I'm surprised no one pointed out this gem.

The human eye can't be made any better?

It couldn't let us see further, like an eagle?
It couldn't let us see at night, like an owl?
It couldn't let us see in more directions?
It couldn't pick up more wavelengths?
It couldn't eliminate the BLIND SPOT all humans have at the optic nerve?
It couldn't give us all perfect vision? (Short sighted, long sighted, astigmatism etc)
It couldn't be better protected like a snakes third eyelid?

Come on, the eye works. But, a very brief and honest examination shows that if it was designed, the designer flunked out in 1st year.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm surprised no one pointed out this gem.

The human eye can't be made any better?

It couldn't let us see further, like an eagle?
It couldn't let us see at night, like an owl?
It couldn't let us see in more directions?
It couldn't pick up more wavelengths?
It couldn't eliminate the BLIND SPOT all humans have at the optic nerve?
It couldn't give us all perfect vision? (Short sighted, long sighted, astigmatism etc)
It couldn't be better protected like a snakes third eyelid?

Come on, the eye works. But, a very brief and honest examination shows that if it was designed, the designer flunked out in 1st year.

This is like arguing a car is a bad design because it can't fly or a Honda Civic is a bad design because it can pull a load like a 18-wheeler. Sure the Honda Civic works but it still can't fly or pull a heavy load. I did not find anything honest about this argument.
As for one example of dishonesty; the so called "blind spot" is already solve since the brain take both images coming from both eyes not to form a 2-d image but a 3-d image of the world around us. All is required is for a person have enough sense not to walking around with one eye shut.

 

[Tiberius]

Just because you cannot comprehend how something could have occured doesn't mean it couldn't have occured. There are many animals today that have eyes in various stages of evolution, from the light sensitive spots of giant clams through the eyes of snails to Human eyes and eyes that are even more advanced than ours. They show how the eyes that we have today have changed from one stage to another throughout the millions of years that eyes have been evolving.

In any case, if we were intelligently designed, then I have a few questions for that designer. Starting with just the eyes, I have to ask this...

Our eyes work because the retina has cells which are sensitive to light. However, these cells need both blood vessels (to get nutrients) and nerves (to transmit the signals) in order to operate properly. However, in Human eyes, these blood vessels and nerves are IN FRONT of the retina, which means that the light entering the eye must get past these nerves and blood vessels. This degrades the image formed by our eyes. It is possible to put these blood vessels and nerves behind the retina, as there are other species out there that have eyes with this layout. Why then do Human eyes have this poor design if they were indeed designed?

 

[Smidlee]

Just because you cannot comprehend how something could have occured doesn't mean it couldn't have occured. There are many animals today that have eyes in various stages of evolution, from the light sensitive spots of giant clams through the eyes of snails to Human eyes and eyes that are even more advanced than ours. They show how the eyes that we have today have changed from one stage to another throughout the millions of years that eyes have been evolving.

Today's animals don't count since according to the theory are equal evolved. (Actually this isn't really true since reproduction rate are different.) All we've got to go by is the fossil record which doesn't support the "Little Eyeball That Could " story. Thus the evidence is forced into the evolution dogma. ( Another part that the "Little Eyeball that Could" got wrong is the most simple eye spot can in fact determine which direction light is coming from.)

In any case, if we were intelligently designed, then I have a few questions for that designer. Starting with just the eyes, I have to ask this...

Our eyes work because the retina has cells which are sensitive to light. However, these cells need both blood vessels (to get nutrients) and nerves (to transmit the signals) in order to operate properly. However, in Human eyes, these blood vessels and nerves are IN FRONT of the retina, which means that the light entering the eye must get past these nerves and blood vessels. This degrades the image formed by our eyes. It is possible to put these blood vessels and nerves behind the retina, as there are other species out there that have eyes with this layout. Why then do Human eyes have this poor design if they were indeed designed?

the human eye (as well as the brain and every other body part) is built by a single cell which only adds to the complexity. Also atheist assume this was a bad design before learning about the Muller cell which acts like fiber optics. This is something engineers can apply to build better digital cameras.
Using your own argument against you ; Just because you can't comprehend the advantages of the inverted eye doesn't mean there are not any. Even then there is often more than one way to do a job.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm surprised no one pointed out this gem.

The human eye can't be made any better?

It couldn't let us see further, like an eagle?
It couldn't let us see at night, like an owl?
It couldn't let us see in more directions?
It couldn't pick up more wavelengths?
It couldn't eliminate the BLIND SPOT all humans have at the optic nerve?
It couldn't give us all perfect vision? (Short sighted, long sighted, astigmatism etc)
It couldn't be better protected like a snakes third eyelid?

Come on, the eye works. But, a very brief and honest examination shows that if it was designed, the designer flunked out in 1st year.

Detachable retinas are another good one. There are much better "designed" eyes in the animal kingdom than ours.

 

[Tiberius]

Today's animals don't count since according to the theory are equal evolved. (Actually this isn't really true since reproduction rate are different.)

I find it interesting that you immediately discount your own evidence here. But assuming that you didn't, here's my response.

You are making the mistake that evolution says that all animals will evolve at equal rates. This is not true. Animals become better adapted to their environment. Once they get as well adapted as they can get, they will change very little. This is why crocodiles have remained very similar for the last several million years.

How does this apply to eyes? Easy.

Take a clam. It has eyes that are little more than light sensitive spots, and it can only tell the difference between light and dark. It uses these eyes to recognise if a shadow passes over the top of it, which could be a predator.

The clam has had eyes like this for millions of years. Why hasn't it evolved better eyes? The simple answer is that it doesn't need to. The eyes it has., the simple light sensitive spots, are able to do all that the clam requires. If it had better eyes, it would be able to see better, yes, but this increase in visual acuity wouldn't give it any particular advantage over other clams that lacked the better eyes. And yet, these better eyes would create a problem for it - they could take longer to grow, they could be more easily damaged or hurt, it could cost the clam more in resources to build the eyes. So the clam hasn't evolved better eyes for the simple reason that it would cost more to create the eyes than the clam would benefit from having them.

And evolution is all about efficiency in ther here-and-now. Evolution isn't going to create something because in half a million years the animal will be able to use it. If it doesn't give the animal an advantage that makes it worthwhile for the animal to have it, then it is just a burden. Evolution is all about a cost-to-benefit analysis. If it costs a lot and doesn't result in much of a benefit, then it doesn't stay.

So the clams don't evolve better eyes because such eyes would be high in cost and yet provide very little in the way of benefit.

All we've got to go by is the fossil record which doesn't support the "Little Eyeball That Could " story. Thus the evidence is forced into the evolution dogma. ( Another part that the "Little Eyeball that Could" got wrong is the most simple eye spot can in fact determine which direction light is coming from.)

In what way does the fossil record not support the evolution of the eye? We have very old fossils of some of the earliest animals to have eyes, and they have the more simple eyes. As we look at younger and younger fossils, the eyes become more complex.

the human eye (as well as the brain and every other body part) is built by a single cell which only adds to the complexity. Also atheist assume this was a bad design before learning about the Muller cell which acts like fiber optics. This is something engineers can apply to build better digital cameras.

The fact remains that there are animal eyes out there that have the nerve cells and blood vessels behind the retina instead of in front of the retina, and these eyes have significant advantages.

Using your own argument against you ; Just because you can't comprehend the advantages of the inverted eye doesn't mean there are not any. Even then there is often more than one way to do a job.

I may not be able to come up with any advantages (and believe me, biologists have been looking for a long time to find them), but I can find quite a few DISadvantages.

 

[Smidlee]

Example of No dimples needed
Euglena is a tiny, one-celled plant or animal. It is a PLANT since it contains CHLOROPHYLL and can make its own food. It is also usually classed as an ANIMAL since it moves quickly and has an opening for taking in food. Euglenas are cigar-shaped and

Although the euglena has no true eye, it has an eyespot which is sensitive to light. It will swim toward light.

Flat spot eyes can also find the direction of the source of light.

An interesting statement from an article :

Jawless fishes (Agnatha; lampreys and hagfishes) most closely resemble the earliest stage in vertebrate evolution and lamprey-like animals already existed in the Lower Cambrian [about 540 million years ago (MYA)]. Agnathans are thought to have separated from the main vertebrate lineage at least 500 MYA. Hagfishes have primitive eyes, but the eyes of adult lampreys are well-developed.

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/211/10/1559

 

[lawtonfogle]

organisms can't by evolution alone harness light waves into actual vision through evolution/natural selection/adaptation because light waves travel at one billion miles per second, if you were to ask an engineer to try and design a way to harness light waves into vision in a biological eyeball he wouldn't have a clue so how could evolution start from no vision to the human eye ball which can't be made any better happen?-This proves intelligent design.
Also what process of mutation/evolution could even think of a sense of sight being useful to the simple organism?

Along with all the other senses organisms have it makes it even more unlikely that adaptation gave us these abilities. Am i not right??

God created every creature.

Scientist still haven't matched up with evolution in many many different ways. Just because we can't do it now does not mean 'Goddidit'.

 

[lawtonfogle]

First time I have heard someone argue that because an engineer couldn't think it up it must be designed.

They like setting it up so no matter the outcome, they can say they won.

 

[Tiberius]

So does anyone have anything that proves intelligent design or not?

 

[laconicstudent]

So does anyone have anything that proves intelligent design or not?

Obviously not, since Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience. Its about as true as Melanin Theory.

 

[philadiddle]

So does anyone have anything that proves intelligent design or not?

LOL, are you fishing for people to shoot down?

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah.

everyone needs a hobby...

 

[29apples]

If we were designed then I am not impressed.

Eyes use opsins for light detection. Opsins belong to the GPCR superfamily. As the term "superfamily" implies, there are a lot of GPCRs out there. Most of them are not opsins.

You can use that fact to form an analogy to the irreducibly complex mouse trap. One states that the parts of the mouse trap are worthless unless they are actually assembled into a mousetrap. That is until one uses the spring mechanism as a tie clip.

For those who don't see the analogy:
opsin (GPCR) is to eye as
spring mechanism is to mouse trap.
GPCRs are used in other signaling pathways in the body just as the spring mechanism can be used as a tie clip, money clip, chip bag clip etc.

 

[29apples]

Also what process of mutation/evolution could even think of a sense of sight being useful to the simple organism?

Random mutations in GPCRs that enable them to detect light. Organisms that can detect light in their environment would have an advantage over those which could not detect light.

Along with all the other senses organisms have it makes it even more unlikely that adaptation gave us these abilities. Am i not right??

GPCRs are involved in every one of our 5 senses, although the intestacy of their involvement varies. This is indicative of adaptation of GPCRs to be used in sensory perception.

 

[gluadys]

Random mutations in GPCRs that enable them to detect light. Organisms that can detect light in their environment would have an advantage over those which could not detect light.



GPCRs are involved in every one of our 5 senses, although the intestacy of their involvement varies. This is indicative of adaptation of GPCRs to be used in sensory perception.

Interesting. Can you explain what a GPCR is? Is it a type of gene--chemical--protein?