As I understand the process of evolution there are changes through
mutations that get filtered by natural selection, the good changes and
bad ones will continue down the path they lead to until they run their
course whatever that may be. The only thing that is used to determine
what we call good or bad is how the progress of life gets affected by
those changes. If after a mutation life continued the changes were
good, if afterwards life didn’t the mutation we call those bad. For
evolution changes are just changes it is all the same to evolution
mutations are just mutations there isn’t any goal in place, there isn’t
any plan to achieve anything, and there isn’t any design to work
towards in any trial and error fashion there are just mutations through
time being filtered by natural selection. So the question is can the
human eye be achieved under those conditions with nothing but
random changes through natural selection?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
Main article: Visual system
The visual system in humans allows individuals to assimilate information from the environment. The act of seeing starts when the lens of the eye focuses an image of its surroundings onto a light-sensitive membrane in the back of the eye, called the retina. The retina is actually part of the brain that is isolated to serve as a transducer for the conversion of patterns of light into neuronal signals. The lens of the eye focuses light on the photoreceptive cells of the retina, which detect the photons of light and respond by producing neural impulses. These signals are processed in a hierarchical fashion by different parts of the brain, from the retina to the lateral geniculate nucleus, to the primary and secondary visual cortex of the brain.
The eye is a part of a system that allows humans to see the
environment around them. To give a blind process like evolution credit
for the (human eye that sees) is to suggest that without a plan or
purpose, a series of events occurred which modifies DNA and through
time those modifications gave our species our visual acuities. How
evolution supposedly did this was again without a purpose or design;
what is being suggested is that those unrelated modifications through
mutations in DNA formed the various parts of our visual system, and
as those parts were formed had them also work together sending and
receiving information through the system in a useful manner so that
we see our universe around us.
I felt the need to at least get this thread started since I have talked
about it for awhile now. I will add to it soon, but here at least is a
beginning.
If you feel I'm wrong about any of this please speak up now and I'll
address your concerns if possible in my next post.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe answer is: yes. Can you please stop posting in the Science forum now?
As I understand the process of evolution there are changes through
mutations that get filtered by natural selection, the good changes and
bad ones will continue down the path they lead to until they run their
course whatever that may be. The only thing that is used to determine
what we call good or bad is how the progress of life gets affected by
those ...[text shortened]... f this please speak up now and I'll
address your concerns if possible in my next post.
Kelly
Originally posted by randolphI'm sorry; you have the ability to tell people where they can post with
The answer is: yes. Can you please stop posting in the Science forum now?
some authority or do you just possess the arrogance to think your
views alone matter here?
What are your saying here too, "The answer is: yes." what question are
you answering?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou only asked one question.
I'm sorry; you have the ability to tell people where they can post with
some authority or do you just possess the arrogance to think your
views alone matter here?
What are your saying here too, "The answer is: yes." what question are
you answering?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe if you read your own post you would find out.
I'm sorry; you have the ability to tell people where they can post with
some authority or do you just possess the arrogance to think your
views alone matter here?
What are your saying here too, "The answer is: yes." what question are
you answering?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI hate to run with the crowd but my answer is YES too.
As I understand the process of evolution there are changes through
mutations that get filtered by natural selection, the good changes and
bad ones will continue down the path they lead to until they run their
course whatever that may be. The only thing that is used to determine
what we call good or bad is how the progress of life gets affected by
those ...[text shortened]... f this please speak up now and I'll
address your concerns if possible in my next post.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo within the flow of evolution, there are positive mutations in DNA,
As I understand the process of evolution there are changes through
mutations that get filtered by natural selection, the good changes and
bad ones will continue down the path they lead to until they run their
course whatever that may be. The only thing that is used to determine
what we call good or bad is how the progress of life gets affected by
those f this please speak up now and I'll
address your concerns if possible in my next post.
Kelly
these cause alterations within a living system that should get passed
down to later generations building upon one another through natural
selection. The changes are realized by living systems as they go
through their processes of birth, or however species multiplies. Species
live, multiply, and die, while changes that occurred within DNA continue
to do its thing, with none of the changes being by design they are
without purpose. Randomness of mutations are being credited with
some of the most sophisticated systems ever, which I believe is so
unlikely some one has to prove it is possible before it should ever be
entertained as having anything to do with reality. People seem to just
accept this as factual; as if it is easier to go with the flow of common
beliefs than to look at this very critically, especially since questioning
this will lead to belittlement and being marginalized by others as can
be witnessed by reading posts on this site in other threads.
With design building a single complex system can be daunting
depending on the requirements and level of complexity; to see
multiple such extremely complicated systems interacting as one
system is an absolutely incredible accomplishment. Evolution is not
only being credited with a single system, it is also being credited with
the blending of all the systems within all life. The size, shape, the
type of matter of each piece of our system is made of has to be
encoded by DNA, all the functions have to be encoded, stop and start
mechanisms have to be encoded, how each piece of the system and
how each system reacts to each other has be encoded through DNA as
well, having information pass back and forth let alone pass back and
forth properly has to be encoded, having that information received
and properly decoded or understood had to be encoded, nothing that
adds to the system functioning properly can be left out of this being
encoded in DNA, and each of these pieces of code that caused all of
this to occur within DNA again were not done by any design or purpose.
The only thing that even allowed code changes within DNA to stick and
get passed on is natural selection which does not promote any helpful
mutation it only acts as a sift of changes by mutations after the fact.
So the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayphytochromes have been discovered in bacteria. maybe that was a start? how far back you wanna go?
So within the flow of evolution, there are positive mutations in DNA,
these cause alterations within a living system that should get passed
down to later generations building upon one another through natural
selection. The changes are realized by living systems as they go
through their processes of birth, or however species multiplies. Species
live, mu ...[text shortened]... the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayProbably 540 million years ago during the Cambrian period. Nerves came first; then a pigment evolved which could catch light and transmit the information to the nerve.
So within the flow of evolution, there are positive mutations in DNA,
these cause alterations within a living system that should get passed
down to later generations building upon one another through natural
selection. The changes are realized by living systems as they go
through their processes of birth, or however species multiplies. Species
live, mu ...[text shortened]... the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
Kelly
Later the eye sank into the flesh, making a cup shaped eye, which allowed for directional detection of light. Etc...
^ Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution." Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5 (pp. 602–609).
^ Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila". Science 267 (pp. 1788–1792).
^ Tomarev, S.I., Callaerts, P., Kos, L., Zinovieva, R., Halder, G., Gehring, W., and Piatigorsky, J. (1997). "Squid Pax-6 and eye development." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94 (pp. 2421–2426).
Originally posted by KellyJayJust out of curiosity, why are you asking a bunch of engineers, technicians, chess players and such all these questions? If you truly were interested I would think you would go to the experts. Could it be you are already prejudiced against them and cannot take them seriously and here you can safely rail against their flaws?
So within the flow of evolution, there are positive mutations in DNA,
these cause alterations within a living system that should get passed
down to later generations building upon one another through natural
selection. The changes are realized by living systems as they go
through their processes of birth, or however species multiplies. Species
live, mu ...[text shortened]... the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
Kelly
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by KellyJayOh God, not that worn-out, broken, ill-thought-through, dishonest Unintelligent Design argument again.
So the question is can the
human eye be achieved under those conditions with nothing but
random changes through natural selection?
Look, this has been done to death. And again. And again. And yet again once more. But Unintelligent Designers Do Not Listen. Why should anyone try to explain once more? Even a very modest understanding of the theory of evolution coupled with a very limited knowledge of animals other than mammals would give you the answer to your question. That you still ask this question after all these decades of it being bashed into the ground means that you lack one or both of those.
Richard
Originally posted by sonhouseI was asked why I felt it couldn't happen through evolution. I'm putting
Just out of curiosity, why are you asking a bunch of engineers, technicians, chess players and such all these questions? If you truly were interested I would think you would go to the experts. Could it be you are already prejudiced against them and cannot take them seriously and here you can safely rail against their flaws?
my reasons out there.
Kelly