All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
It has been traditionally thought by evolutionists that eyes between at least some of the main animal groups had evolved independently from each other and more than once.
The bases for this assumption was simply because it is hard to imagine how the eye of, say a fruit fly with its compound eye and, say, the human eye could have a common ancestral ...[text shortened]... able to find a link about this but I have heard of it from somewhere -I don’t remember where).

The division between deuterostomes and protostomes happened before anything like an eye evolved. Either the same gene evolved twice or it is possible to transfer genes between species. One possible explanation for this which is that horizontal interspecies transfer of DNA happens due to cross species infection by RNA retro-viruses. This kind of thing (genes from one species turning up in another) has been seen before - all it shows is that the traditional Tree of Life is too simpler a model to completely describe evolutionary history.

The hypothesis that the chance that the same gene couldn´t have evolved twice because the chances are a trillion to one was either completely made up on the spot (like 96% of all statistics) or based on one of those back-of-an-envelope calculations where they forget about the birthday paradox.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's no way to detect design unless you know something about how the designer designs things. Since God supposedly designed everything, there's no way to separate the "designed" from the "non-designed", if that's your implication, and who else would it be? Why would someone think the eye is designed and, say, rocks are not?

When we find an arro ...[text shortened]... n on a rock...well we KNOW humans do these things so we kind of suspect a human designer.

So unless you know the designer you cannot see design?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So unless you know the designer you cannot see design?
Kelly

Please, don't let this thread become a thread about religion.
There is already a Forum for Spiritual and religious things, like designers.
Let this thread remain a scientific thread.
Please...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Please, don't let this thread become a thread about religion.
There is already a Forum for Spiritual and religious things, like designers.
Let this thread remain a scientific thread.
Please...

Do you see me or others using terms that have spiritual appeals?
I'm asking questions about design, it is others not I who are bringing
up the spiritual, as far as I'm concern designers can be any one
who can do it with intent. Since the PC you are typing on was
designed, and it wasn't done in a church it was done by science, so
pull your head out of the ground and actually discuss the topic and
quit trying to turn this into a spiritual discussion! Practice what you
preach!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you see me or others using terms that have spiritual appeals?
I'm asking questions about design, it is others not I who are bringing
up the spiritual, as far as I'm concern designers can be any one
who can do it with intent. Since the PC you are typing on was
designed, and it wasn't done in a church it was done by science, so
pull your head out ...[text shortened]... nd
quit trying to turn this into a spiritual discussion! Practice what you
preach!
Kelly

Designer is a religious term in your context.

Go to the Spiritual Forum if you want to discuss Designer, or Dinosaurs in the Ark of Noah, or any other non-scientific matters.
If you want to discuss science, you are welcome in this Forum.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Designer is a religious term in your context.

Go to the Spiritual Forum if you want to discuss Designer, or Dinosaurs in the Ark of Noah, or any other non-scientific matters.
If you want to discuss science, you are welcome in this Forum.

No, designer is a term given to one who designs, you are attempting
to make it into a religious term so you can avoid discussing the topic.
Even now you are bringing up the Ark of Noah, and attempting to
bringing the spiritual into this discussion, shame on you, you are
being a hypocrite of the highest level since you are always going on
and on about keeping religion out of the science forum.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, designer is a term given to one who designs, you are attempting
to make it into a religious term so you can avoid discussing the topic.
Even now you are bringing up the Ark of Noah, and attempting to
bringing the spiritual into this discussion, shame on you, you are
being a hypocrite of the highest level since you are always going on
and on about keeping religion out of the science forum.
Kelly

Then who is the designer of yours?

Now, keep this within science, or go to Spiritual Forum where all discusstion of matters of any divine designers should be in the first place.

I bet you don't answer that question...
...as you refuse to answer my question from last year about the dinoaurs of yours living in the biblical time. You have evidence of it, and put you honour at stake. You didn't answer those questions either.

Go to the Spiritual Forum, and stay there until you have something scientific stuff to discuss.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you see me or others using terms that have spiritual appeals?
I'm asking questions about design, it is others not I who are bringing
up the spiritual, as far as I'm concern designers can be any one
who can do it with intent. Since the PC you are typing on was
designed, and it wasn't done in a church it was done by science, so
pull your head out ...[text shortened]... nd
quit trying to turn this into a spiritual discussion! Practice what you
preach!
Kelly

I´m sorry, that argument doesn´t hold water. If you are arguing against evolution in favour of a design then you are arguing in favour of a creator. It is simply impossible to argue for design (except of the blind watchmaker variety) without an agent.

Where I think everyone else is wrong is complaining about you taking about creationist ideas in a thread about evolution. I don´t agree with creationist ideas, but it´s a theory that has an alternative explanation of the phenomenon under discusson - so really as long as you don´t stifle other lines of discussion I don´t see the problem.

So on to substance:

There is considerable evidence that species emerge and become extinct over time and that forms are related to one another. There is a mechanism for passing on of inheritable characteristics which is well understood, the copying process is imperfect so that we are not perfect copies of our ancestors, and we expect some genotypes to have phenotypic expressions which are more or less favorable to the survival (until reproduction) of the host organism. Forced breeding allows us to do evolutionary experiments. Selective breeding of wolves has given us a new species we call dogs with dozens of different sub-species. We therefore have high quality evidence that evolution happens - the most parsimonious explanation for the variety of species around us is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Saying things like ¨Just because you don´t don´t believe in my God doesn´t mean that he didn´t create all this.¨ really won´t cut it. Since you cannot provide direct evidence of a creator (the creator could, but he´s not the one having the argument) you need to show that there are serious flaws in the theory of evolution as it is currently understood. You would have to demonstrate that the rate of mutations could not have caused the number of currently existing species to have appeared; so you either rule out evolution altogether - which you can´t due to evidence from forced breeding creating new sub-species - or you have to show that it happens too slowly to explain the variety of life in the world around us. I think you will have problems trying to show this.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I´m sorry, that argument doesn´t hold water. If you are arguing against evolution in favour of a design then you are arguing in favour of a creator. It is simply impossible to argue for design (except of the blind watchmaker variety) without an agent.

Where I think everyone else is wrong is complaining about you taking about creationist ideas in a t ...[text shortened]... the variety of life in the world around us. I think you will have problems trying to show this.

I asked a question how you knew the difference between two things
one a common ancestor and two a common design. I did not bring
up spiritual arguments, others did, I was directly addressed as the
cause of the spiritual points, I pointed out it wasn't me. You may
believe you have mind reading abilities, I ask you to turn those off
and read the posts instead. My intent was written out, I wanted an
answer to the question I posed, it isn't my fault others cannot stay
on topic and wish to turn this into a spiritual discussion, but when they
do attempt to shift the discussion to the spiritual why am I to blame
and not them? I'll address your points later, off to work now.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
The division between deuterostomes and protostomes happened before anything like an eye evolved. Either the same gene evolved twice or it is possible to transfer genes between species. One possible explanation for this which is that horizontal interspecies transfer of DNA happens due to cross species infection by RNA retro-viruses. This kind of thing ...[text shortened]... d on one of those back-of-an-envelope calculations where they forget about the birthday paradox.

….The division between deuterostomes and protostomes happened before anything like an eye evolved.
..…

How do you know this?
-I am not implying it is wrong, I don,t know if it is wrong. I just wonder where you got than info from.
Can you show me any links that shows evidence for this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wanted an
answer to the question I posed, it isn't my fault others cannot stay
on topic and wish to turn this into a spiritual discussion, but when they
do attempt to shift the discussion to the spiritual why am I to blame
and not them?
Kelly

(1) You're not particularly keen of answering questions yourself, are you?
(2) You are very keen of turning things into spiritual matters yourself, aren't you?
(3) Yes, since you asked, you're to blame. You are clearly anti-science and still you like most of all to reside at the Scientific Forum.

The question I have is who is this designer you happens to belive in? (I remind you of the point #1 above.) If you can to answer this without bringing your religion into it, you have a lot of imagination.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….The division between deuterostomes and protostomes happened before anything like an eye evolved.
..…

How do you know this?
-I am not implying it is wrong, I don,t know if it is wrong. I just wonder where you got than info from.
Can you show me any links that shows evidence for this?[/b]

It´s one of those bits of general knowledge where I´m not sure that I know where I got it from. Eyes first appear in the fossil record in the Cambrian about 540 MYA. The division between protostomata and deuterostomata happened over 555 MYA. The difficulty is that the evidence gets worse the further back you go - so it´s easy for me to be wrong about this.

These pages give the data I took those figures from (the page provides references for them):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eyes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostome

According to the page on Evolution of eyes the octopus eye is ¨designed¨ differently to a vertebrate eye so that there is no blind spot. I think that this gives an intelligent design hypothesis some problems - if the designer is intelligent why give an inferior eye to one set of species - especially one you´ve given such a good brain to?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(1) You're not particularly keen of answering questions yourself, are you?
(2) You are very keen of turning things into spiritual matters yourself, aren't you?
(3) Yes, since you asked, you're to blame. You are clearly anti-science and still you like most of all to reside at the Scientific Forum.

The question I have is who is this designer you happen ...[text shortened]... you can to answer this without bringing your religion into it, you have a lot of imagination.

Look at the text, was it me or you that first brought up Noah, look
at the text was it me or another that brought up creation? You do not
seem to be able to stay on topic, and simply having me here is
enough for you to go off on the deep end, even when I don't bring
up spiritual matters, you do!
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
It´s one of those bits of general knowledge where I´m not sure that I know where I got it from. Eyes first appear in the fossil record in the Cambrian about 540 MYA. The division between protostomata and deuterostomata happened over 555 MYA. The difficulty is that the evidence gets worse the further back you go - so it´s easy for me to be wrong about ...[text shortened]... y give an inferior eye to one set of species - especially one you´ve given such a good brain to?

Another here claims the octopus's eye creates issues for a design, but
I have yet to see a reason for that presented that makes sense. If
we accept our bodies do change over time due to the environment and
others factors, why would it be hard to accept that even if both
eyes were at one point the same, one changed over time and got
worse while another didn't because they were subjected to different
stresses in their respective environments? This argument using the
octopus seems like it is simply people rejecting the very thing they
claim has taken place over time, for the reasons they claim have
occurred, it is nearly laughable.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I asked a question how you knew the difference between two things
one a common ancestor and two a common design. I did not bring
up spiritual arguments, others did, I was directly addressed as the
cause of the spiritual points, I pointed out it wasn't me. You may
believe you have mind reading abilities, I ask you to turn those off
and read the posts in tual why am I to blame
and not them? I'll address your points later, off to work now.
Kelly

….I did not bring up spiritual arguments, others did,
.…

Reminder of your very first post in this thread:

…Just so I know, how do you know it isn't because of a common design
and not a common ancestor?
Kelly
.…

-Obviously, we all know that you meant “intelligent design” from “design” above ( i.e. “design” from a “god” ) thus you are the one that brought up spirituality to this thread have and before this nobody brought it up although I am guilty of then responding to that post in kind.

I will start a new thread in the spirituality forum called “criticism against evolution” so that you and others can make their religious criticism of evolution there thus prevent religious rhetoric cluttering up the science forum. If you look in this new thread, you will see that I have already responded to one of your posts that you made in this thread in the science forum.