I keep getting told that the eye is to complex to evolve, that scientists are lying and that jazz
Here is a page that explain the basics.
And here's a video!
There is no controversy about this, it's all in the creationists heads. They have been lying to you and to themselves. In the effort to be fair I've left the comments open but if I keep getting Disco Institute stuff I may change my mind. The answer are out there people, I don't know everything. But to claim something can't have evolved because it's to complex, when we have intermediate forms still around on the planet is arrogant beyond belief. You are free to believe in what you want in this country, but it doesn't mean I have to put up with it on my blog. So if you keep lying to me I will delete you posts.
I came to evolution through paleontology and anthropology. Through fossils, so I will admit that I don't know a ton about eyes since they don't really interest me. That's why I put up the links. They are simple easy to understand and the science has been per reviewed. Something the Disco guys can't claim.
Brett
10 comments:
I'm blind in one eye, but it's optical-nerve related rather than the physical eye itself.
It seems all my visual potential has shunted into my left eye, leaving my right one to be...lazy.
Overall, I still have good vision. I'm just a cyclops.
-Raid
Interesting, the brain is remarkably adaptive. So do you have any depth perception? I don't see well at night myself.
Well they might be able to hep with it in a few years if this stem cell stuff pans out. It's looking good:)
This is what is so frustrating about discussing science with evolutionists. They always say they have the answer then offer some veneer of scientific proof. This is a plausible explanation if you accept it at face value and don't dig any deeper than what they are saying. This is an explanation of what could happen, not based off of facts or proof, but an interesting story. Once you look at the difference in information and how it is conducted from light sensitive pits to photo cells you immediately see a huge problem. It is like saying phone lines evolved into HD television cable lines because they both run to houses-it crreates more problems than it solves. Factor in the rigidity of DNA body plans and how they resist change and/or revert back to a former state. The fact is that mutations of the occipital area, a highly complex region tend to weaken an organism and destroy the ability to see, not increase its sensitivity, is what is observed in nature and the lab, but for evolution to work you have to believe in the very opposite of what science knows. I guess this is why I'm always flabbergasted when I'm accused of ignoring the scientific proof.
Another way to look at the most basic problem of Evolution is it never provides the means for evolution to take place. It is always assumed that something causes the change to take place. It is like me being broke and needing cash, so I decide to be a millionaire instead. Nice idea, but the real trick is not saying what I would like to happen but describe the process that gets you from point a to point b. Gradual steps- okay but what gets you moving along several small gradual steps? .
-Steve
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news115919015.html
These are articles on intermediates. Which if ID was true should be completely different from our eyes
I had written a long reply, but it comes across as rather mean and I really don't want to go that route. I will say this. You once told me that all the human ancesstors like neanderthals and erectus were just regular modern man hundreds and hundreds of years old! That all the fossils on earth had been struck by lightning and that changed the dating to millions of years instead of hundreds..... Of course I will question your scientific knowledge. You just seem to be parroting al the DI stuff I hear all the time. All of it has been refuted. If you checked some other wed sites you would see this.
I have said before that I don't really known a lot eyes, they gross me out. The fact that evolution has been proven with proof of speciation and loads of transitional fossils means eyes must have evolved too. Unless your trying to tell me that 'god did it' when we have proof the rest of the animal evoloved naturally? A bunch of animals running around not being able to see until god came down and gave them eyes. Now THAT is silly. I mean eyes would have evolved a long ass time ago, these are soft tissue that won't fossilize well if at all. How are we supposed to tell what is a proto eye from an actual eye? If you want to discuss this with somone why not try emailing Pharangula? He's the guy who wrote that paper I sent you.
Brett
One las thing I forgot to address about "Evolution is it never provides the means for evolution to take place"
I completely disagree. And here's why:
If a specific trait is successful it will continue to exist while the bad traits will die off. If you breed 2 of these successful traits together you've reinforced that trait and in some cases will get a better more improved trait. I had a saluki with a long neck, we called him the giraffe dog. We breed him to a regular or even short necked dog. The pups all had longish necks, not as long as dads, but long. We breed one of those pups back to dad (for other reason not related to the neck) those pups now have necks even longer than dad. I have no doubt we could create a really long necked dog. Now I know you'll say this artifical selection and it is sort of, but the necks were not something we were selecting for. BUT if you have a trait that is successful in the wild and only those with this trait survive, like long necks, and they start breeding together you will start to get longer necks. That's how it works. Things get built upon, until they get built up so much they don't resemble what they started out as, that's evolution.
Brett
The trouble is there are limits. You can breed dogs with longer necks, but you will never be able to breed a dog with a neck as long as a giraffe. You are showing variation, which we agree on; it is how variation jumps into something else that I have trouble with. It is trying to show how a longer necked animal will suddenly create a new series of one way blood valves like a giraffe needs to go along with the long neck to keep its brain from exploding everytime it raises its head. Animals have a body plan as part of their DNA. The body plan says four legs, a tail, a neck, a head, etc. It allows for all those seperated pieces to have variations within set limits, but it is in rigid in not allowing new structures in.
Steve
Brett said, "If a specific trait is successful it will continue to exist while the bad traits will die off." Something about this statement bothered me but I could not put my finger on it.
It took me a while to figure it out, but I came to the conclusion that this statement is totally incompatible with incremental step evolution. If new structures evolved by minute changes in size, length, or color-for your statement to be true, each one of those steps would have to work within the current anatomical make up of the creature to make it more fit. For instance each step of the famous squirrel to bat example would have to contribute to a more successful gliding squirrel before it developed bat wings, but nature shows the opposite. Small incremental changes in squirrel side flaps would make the animal less fit, a poorer leaper and not a glider at all. It would become easier prey and less fit to survive over its non flappy relatives. Then throw in some sort of arm to wing bone type evolutin and you would have an animal totally unfit to survive. It would be a slow clumsy gangly squirrel, in other words easy pickings for any predator. Almost every example of supposed evolution features similar obstacles which the evolvoing animal would have faced thousands or tens of thousands of times. Each step would have to make the animal more fit, or the change would be rejected-and nature shows exactly that. Variation within limits-no new appendages, no increase in DNA information, and evolutionary steps would prove survival of the less fit.
-Steve
otherwise evolutionary steps would prove survival of the less fit.
Sorry Steve, but it's not that's ONE theory on how it works. I see no problems with it.
Have you ever seen a flying squirrel? They are just a agile and in fact have a remarkable leaping ability, they don't just fall out of trees. DNA changes are very small. It takes a LONG time for them to change enough to be very differntial. Neanderthals DNA is 99.5-99.9% the same as ours. They seperated from us 400,000 to 500,000 years ago. Chips are only slightly less like us DNA wise and we split 7-8 MILLION years ago. Your looking for some sort of measuring stick for evolution and there isn't one.
Brett
Brett
"Have you ever seen a flying squirrel? They are just a agile and in fact have a remarkable leaping ability, they don't just fall out of trees." Correct, they leap and glide, they don't accidentally start sailing about. An animal developing a gliding mechanism would not incrementally become a better glider, either you attempt to glide, or you attempt to jump. If you try to jump and suddenly your body wants to glide, your screwed.
Post a Comment