RE: New Transitional for Human Eye

RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/5/2008 7:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo quote: jawed ancestors of modern fish whose bodies were protected by thick bony armour. Ah, hold on a second. How can an evolutionist with Dr. keep dishing up this slop? Everyone knows that it's phsically imposible for life of have evolved in the ocean. Why? Way way to much water. Chance peptide formation requries the absence of water because it will short out it's formation. Was the dear. Dr. asleep during his first year of chemistry? No, but you apparently slept through the part of biology where they explained the difference between origin of species and origin of life. Evolution is not about the chemical origin of life. That's a different theory that has yet to be formulated. Now are you going to contend that the ancestors of modern fish did not live in the ocean?

Carico -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/5/2008 8:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography at ANU, a scanning technique that creates a three-dimensional image of complex organic structures. “What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates,” Dr Young says. “This means that we’re able to add one more piece to the puzzle of how the human eye came to be.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm Another bit of evidence for the creationists to ignore. [sm=purplelaugh.gif][sm=purplelaugh.gif][sm=purplelaugh.gif] All that proves is that computer technology can create 3 dimensional objects and nothing more. But your leap to judgment is exactly why the term "mad scientist" was coined. Pople gather in a room and fool around then claim they have the answer to the existence of the universe. [sm=widecry.gif]

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/6/2008 3:32:09 PM)
quote: No, but you apparently slept through the part of biology where they explained the difference between origin of species and origin of life. Evolution is not about the chemical origin of life. That's a different theory that has yet to be formulated. Now are you going to contend that the ancestors of modern fish did not live in the ocean? No sir. I was not asleep during class. I bought the fairy tale hook line and sinker. But then I continued on in my engineering education and God knows I wish I knew then what I know now. Oh the fun I could have had! The only reason why evolution has a ghost of a chance at being promoted as a science is because people accept slop as science and can't think critically about the stuff they read. You don't appear to be an exception to this rule. But I won't give up hope yet [;)] Take your original article for example. The dear Dr. has absolutely know clue how complex the eye was because he can't examine it. Why? It didn't fossilize. Nor did the pattern recognizing neural net. So for him to form a theory about something that does not exist is pure speculation. Let me give you an example. It's like the Dr. is trying to say how complex the insides of a computer is by just looking at the case. You can't do it. Not in a million years. Not in a billion. You can't do it, period.

GHitch -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/6/2008 3:54:43 PM)
quote: Ancient armoured fish fossils from Australia present some of the first definite fossil evidence of a forerunner to the human eye... Ya right. More Darwinist wishful speculation at best.

gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/6/2008 4:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Take your original article for example. The dear Dr. has absolutely know clue how complex the eye was because he can't examine it. Why? It didn't fossilize. Nor did the pattern recognizing neural net. But in this case it did. Or at least part of it. From the article referred to in the OP quote: "Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ.

FlashAce -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/7/2008 8:57:53 PM)
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin •Your eyes are composed of more than two million working parts. •Can process 36,000 bits of information every hour. •Number of fibers in human optic nerve = 1,200,000 •A normal life-span will bring you almost 24 million images of the world around you •The human eye can detect over 10,000,000 different colors •The eye is the only part of the human body that can function at 100% ability at any moment •There are 120 million rod cells in the retina of your eye "The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory." - Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland

drj11 -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/7/2008 10:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FlashAce "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin More creationist quote mining. Lets take a look at it, with a little more context: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." I'm sure you copy/pasted this from some creationist website... the question is, after seeing this quote in context, and seeing that the intent of the passage is actually the complete opposite of the meaning one would take as they presented it, will you still trust them? Telling lies is good a thing when its Christians do it for Christianity? quote: •Your eyes are composed of more than two million working parts. •Can process 36,000 bits of information every hour. •Number of fibers in human optic nerve = 1,200,000 •A normal life-span will bring you almost 24 million images of the world around you •The human eye can detect over 10,000,000 different colors •The eye is the only part of the human body that can function at 100% ability at any moment •There are 120 million rod cells in the retina of your eye Certainly a fascinating organ with a very interesting evolutionary history. You should read about it sometime.

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 6:00:13 AM)
quote: Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, The problem with Darwin is that he ignored the intuitively obvious, didn’t know squat about engineering and was probably a medschool drop out. Evolution is serial algorithm. Evolution of the eye requires parallel changes in the brain. Therefore Evolution is totally unsuited to bring about any changes what so ever.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 1:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo The problem with Darwin is that he ignored the intuitively obvious, didn’t know squat about engineering and was probably a medschool drop out. Then why was Darwin quoted as an authority to begin with? Darwin lists several examples of transitional eyes which is exactly what one should see if the eye evolved. quote: Evolution is serial algorithm. Evolution of the eye requires parallel changes in the brain. Therefore Evolution is totally unsuited to bring about any changes what so ever. It doesn't take much brain power to take advantage of a focused image. Cubozoan jellyfish have lensed eyes but they have a very simple neural network, one of the most basic nervous systems in the animal kingdom. Also, no engineer worth his money would his degree would have the wires passing in front of the light path, and yet this is exactly how the vertebrate eye is arranged.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 1:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FlashAce "The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory." - Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:16:25 PM)
quote: An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Actually, it’s an argument from statistics. At what point do you look at the statistical improbability and say, it could never happen? Also, it’s an argument from common sense. For example, if I see an object that has form, fit and function(a car, a watch, a computer, an eye etc.), I always say it was designed by an intelligent superior being.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Actually, it’s an argument from statistics. At what point do you look at the statistical improbability and say, it could never happen? Never. You also need solid assumptions to base the statistics on. Reality does not conform to our statistics. We adjust our statistics to reflect reality. quote: Also, it’s an argument from common sense. An argument from common sense is also a logical fallacy. If it was common then you wouldn't have to argue it, and the fact that an argument is common does guarantee that it is correct. 500 years ago the fact that the Sun moved about the Earth was common sense. quote: For example, if I see an object that has form, fit and function(a car, a watch, a computer, an eye etc.), I always say it was designed by an intelligent superior being. Cars, watches, and computers do not reproduce. Were you formed by a maker or do you have parents?

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:30:00 PM)
quote: Then why was Darwin quoted as an authority to begin with? I never do. quote: Darwin lists several examples of transitional eyes which is exactly what one should see if the eye evolved. How do you know that one eye wasn’t designed to operate one way and another eye was designed to operate in a different way? Just because you see a difference, it does not mean it was a transition form. For example, there are many different houses on the street that I live on. They all look some what similar. Because of this, can I say that one house was a transitional form of another? quote: It doesn't take much brain power to take advantage of a focused image. Cubozoan jellyfish have lensed eyes but they have a very simple neural network, one of the most basic nervous systems in the animal kingdom. Brain power was never the issue. Irreducible complexity always is. quote: Also, no engineer worth his money would his degree would have the wires passing in front of the light path, and yet this is exactly how the vertebrate eye is arranged. How do you know that the wires passing in front of the light path were part of the original design and not a genetic defect?

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:44:12 PM)
quote: Never. You also need solid assumptions to base the statistics on. Reality does not conform to our statistics. We adjust our statistics to reflect reality. If you adjust your statistics to reflect reality, you are a liar. Either that or you don’t understand the fundamentals of statistics. quote: Were you formed by a maker or do you have parents? Neither my mother nor my father knew enough about genetics to be able to guide my prenatal development. So I guess that leaves God as the one who formed me. True, my parents provided the initial material, but God was the one who programmed my DNA. Ya can’t have a program with out a programmer. If you could, Mr. Gates would fire all those expensive programmers in Redmon, WA and start using random number generators to write his next operating system.

drj11 -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:44:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Brain power was never the issue. Irreducible complexity always is. Here's a neat trick. Fashion a bridge across a puddle by placing a few footstools on the ground, in a row. Now, place a plank on top of the footstools and remove all the other footstools from underneath the plank, with the exception of the two on each end. You have just evolved an irreducibly complex bridge. As long as organisms can have parts or traits removed (as well as gained) through natural selection irreducible complex systems will evolve. Evolution predicts them.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo How do you know that one eye wasn’t designed to operate one way and another eye was designed to operate in a different way? If it doesn't collect light as a way of sensing the environment then it isn't much of an eye, is it? quote: Just because you see a difference, it does not mean it was a transition form. Then what would a real transitional form look like if evolution is true? quote: For example, there are many different houses on the street that I live on. They all look some what similar. Because of this, can I say that one house was a transitional form of another? I see a whole bunch of humans that look alike. Is this due to the fact that they were all magically poofed into being by magical deity or because they share a common ancestor? quote: Brain power was never the issue. Irreducible complexity always is. How is IC a problem? quote: How do you know that the wires passing in front of the light path were part of the original design and not a genetic defect? It would require a complete reworking of the eye, that's why. Also, this same genetic defect would need to happen in every single vertebrate, from fish to humans. At the same time, this same genetic defect would have to miss every single cephalopod given the fact that their retina is not inverted.

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:49:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Take your original article for example. The dear Dr. has absolutely know clue how complex the eye was because he can't examine it. Why? It didn't fossilize. Nor did the pattern recognizing neural net. But in this case it did. Or at least part of it. From the article referred to in the OP quote: "Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ. With out the pattern recognizing neural net, you just don't know if what one observed was an increase in complexity or a vestigial change. It's just as valid of an argument to say the eye was designed to do exactly what it did.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 5:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo With out the pattern recognizing neural net, you just don't know if what one observed was an increase in complexity or a vestigial change. You don't need a pattern recognizing neural net for a focused image to be useful. A focused image in bilaterians gives information of the direction of movement much better than a non-focused image. Animals with simple optical cups do have the crude ability to know which direction light is coming from. A focused image improves on this ability. Pattern recognition could then follow. quote: It's just as valid of an argument to say the eye was designed to do exactly what it did. Yes, designed by evolution since this is the only mechanism we have evidence for that was active when these features came about.

essentialsaltes -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 6:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo If you adjust your statistics to reflect reality, you are a liar. No, you are making a Bayesian inference. When you have more information, you can make improved estimates of probability.

gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/8/2008 8:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Take your original article for example. The dear Dr. has absolutely know clue how complex the eye was because he can't examine it. Why? It didn't fossilize. Nor did the pattern recognizing neural net. But in this case it did. Or at least part of it. From the article referred to in the OP quote: "Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ. With out the pattern recognizing neural net, you just don't know if what one observed was an increase in complexity or a vestigial change. That was not the point. The claim was that the eye of the placoderm was intermediate between those of jawless and jawed vertebrates. The question of increased complexity was not addressed by the research. What was addressed was the structure and arrangement of muscles and nerves which proved to be intermediate between those found in jawless and jawed vertebrates. Raising the issue of "increased complexity" or "vestigial change" is just moving the goalposts.

SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/10/2008 5:55:12 AM)
quote: Here's a neat trick. Fashion a bridge across a puddle by placing a few footstools on the ground, in a row. Now, place a plank on top of the footstools and remove all the other footstools from underneath the plank, with the exception of the two on each end. You have just evolved an irreducibly complex bridge. As long as organisms can have parts or traits removed (as well as gained) through natural selection irreducible complex systems will evolve. Evolution predicts them. Thanks for illustrating that irreducibly complex systems can’t evolve but require intelligence in order to exist. You just can't get form point A to point B in a serial fashion because the bridge is out. Parallel intervention would dictate for knowledge of what parts are necessary which are not.

drj11 -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/10/2008 7:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo quote: Here's a neat trick. Fashion a bridge across a puddle by placing a few footstools on the ground, in a row. Now, place a plank on top of the footstools and remove all the other footstools from underneath the plank, with the exception of the two on each end. You have just evolved an irreducibly complex bridge. As long as organisms can have parts or traits removed (as well as gained) through natural selection irreducible complex systems will evolve. Evolution predicts them. Thanks for illustrating that irreducibly complex systems can’t evolve but require intelligence in order to exist. You just can't get form point A to point B in a serial fashion because the bridge is out. Parallel intervention would dictate for knowledge of what parts are necessary which are not. Wrong. The corollary to a bridge builder in this analogy would be natural selection, not some other unnamed intelligence. Bridges don't reproduce with variation... life does. Natural selection selects what works. What doesnt work dies. Traits can be added and taken away through natural processes. All it takes for an IC system to evolve, is the removal of a trait that is no longer essential (ie. the rocks under the plank, except the end pieces).

hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/10/2008 9:44:15 AM)
quote: At what point do you look at the statistical improbability and say, it could never happen? This is an intriguing approach. However, let's just seek to understand the statistics and whether all the premises behind such calculations are valid.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/10/2008 11:24:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedToo Thanks for illustrating that irreducibly complex systems can’t evolve but require intelligence in order to exist. You just can't get form point A to point B in a serial fashion because the bridge is out. Parallel intervention would dictate for knowledge of what parts are necessary which are not. No one is saying that IC systems evolve serially. A good example is the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. If you take away the stapes, incus, or malleus (the stirrup, anvil, and hammer) the ear stops working. In reptiles there is a single middle ear bone, the stapes. In the mammalian lower jaw there is one bone while there are three bones in the reptillian lower jaw. This poses a conundrum. If mammals evolved from reptiles this would require the jaw and middle ear to stop working in order for those jaw bones to move into the middle ear, right? Wrong. In the transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals we see how the two lower jaw bones moved into the middle ear while preserving the function of both the middle ear and jaw bone, one step being a double hinged lower jaw. The middle ear and lower jaw evolve in parallel. You can watch the evolution of an IC system. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

essentialsaltes -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/10/2008 12:10:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography... Speaking of fishy eyes ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080710/sc_afp/scienceevolutionspeciesfish_080710125847 Starting with Charles Darwin, evolutionary biologists have fretted and fought over the origins of flatfish, among the handful of weird, deeply asymmetrical creatures in Nature's bestiary. Did flatfish wind up with two eyes on the same side of a lopsided skull through a few chance mutations? Or did this happen gradually, over tens of millions of years? ... Matt Friedman, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, found two fossils that clearly show a glacial evolutionary shift from normal upright fish to their bug-eyed, bottom-hugging descendents. ... The two fossils "deliver the first clear picture of flatfish origins, a hotly contested issue in debates on the mode and tempo of evolution," said Friedman. There can no longer be any doubt, he said in a statement: "The evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual in nature."

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI