Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you (a god) would think it ok if a child was born with no legs and your decision would be tough shyte, thats the way it is, accept it because YOU PIZZ ME OFF.

OK

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think Kelly is claiming that some mutations are only beneficial when in conjunction with other mutations and he cannot conceive of any mechanism by which the could arise.

Actually it is not unusual for genes to be selected for as a group or mutually beneficial genes in a kind of symbiotic relationship. It is even possible for two or more mutations th ...[text shortened]... infact beneficial individually or in a particular sequence but he simply does not realize that.

… We must also realize that many mutations are not particularly harmful and may sit idle in an organism for many generations before another mutation make the first mutation a useful one. ..…

Good point -I had honestly never thought of that.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you not paying attention?

The octopus' eye isn't more complicated than the human eye. They both have a nerve bundle,
they both have a retina, they both have nerve fibers.

Entropy doesn't drive nerve fibers from behind the retina to in front of it. Something had to drive
it.

So, now that that's settled, can you answer my question?

...[text shortened]... with a blind spot when obviously the 'designer' could design
it without one?

Nemesio

It is the same reasoning I have been offering since you began this
line of questioning, we each got the eye that best suited us. So we did
not in your opinion get the better one, big deal, we got the one that
suited our needs and our needs and that of the octopus are different
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Allow me to educate you, since you seem disinclined to research it yourself.

In the human eye, the nerve fibers which conduct the signals received by
the retina sits in front of the retina, which, at the point where it bundles
and forms the optic nerve it creates a blind spot (because the fiber bundle
is too thick to for light to pass through it to get ...[text shortened]... nt the culmination of 'creation,'
why would the designer give him an inferior eye?

Nemesio

"So the question, given that humans represent the culmination of 'creation,'
why would the designer give him an inferior eye? "

The good designer will give the eye to each species that suits them
for the life they are about to lead.
Kelly

Originally posted by flexmore
Lets suppose a world in which there are lots of useful electromagnetic waves bouncing around ... and there are some beings (us) living in that world who are very interested in the information contained in thaose waves.

Then either:
1/we will use those bouncing waves as sources of information .... or
2/some infintely powerful being who is evil will sto ...[text shortened]... from using the waves ... or
2/the devil does not exist (and perhaps also, god does not exist).

Are you for real?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the same reasoning I have been offering since you began this
line of questioning, we each got the eye that best suited us. So we did
not in your opinion get the better one, big deal, we got the one that
suited our needs and our needs and that of the octopus are different
Kelly

How can you tell you got the eye that best suited you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, since you have now changed your statement, can I take it that you are admitting that your original claim is false?
Your original claim was that you had personally observed that on average things were wearing down. You did not put in any clause regarding maintenance.

Now, with your adjusted claim, what constitutes 'maintenance'? I have survived dec ...[text shortened]... down. If natural selection is a form of maintenance, then your observation cannot be applied.

I have not changed my position you my understand it better but it has
not changed. You can keep things going like giving your car a tune up
and so on, but in the end the parts will wear down to the point of
needing replaced. You may live longer if you get your heart fixed or
some other part of your body that is in trouble dealt with, but in the
end you'll die like everyone else. It all goes back to things are in a
state of wearing down, dying off, however you want to describe it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… No one is selecting anything. ..…

Who said there was?[/b]

Natural selection

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Mutations are not a once in a life time thing they could come and go
there is no plan, purpose, or design behind each mutation, why do
you seem to think that once a good one is found it will always stay, or
not get balanced off the books so to speak with a bad mutation? . ..…

I have already clearly answered that twice -natural sele ...[text shortened]... other one mutation that builds on top of the two earlier ones and so on -so what is your point?[/b]

"I have already clearly answered that twice -natural selection continually weeds-out the bad ones while continually selecting the
good ones. "

Repeating what you believe does not prove your point, I ask you how
do you accept only the good ones stay when mutations are not good or
bad they are just mutations? They come and go without a reason so
when a good one comes it can go too, the reasons for them are there
are no reasons for them, a bad one can cancel out a good one, so
I'll ask you again if their isn't anything directing them, why would they
stay? I believe some here have already agreed no one is really
making a selection with respect to mutations so explain this please.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Mutations are not a once in a life time thing they could come and go
there is no plan, purpose, or design behind each mutation, why do
you seem to think that once a good one is found it will always stay, or
not get balanced off the books so to speak with a bad mutation? . ..…

I have already clearly answered that twice -natural sele ...[text shortened]... other one mutation that builds on top of the two earlier ones and so on -so what is your point?[/b]

You are giving Intel to your version of naturual selection.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not changed my position you my understand it better but it has
not changed. You can keep things going like giving your car a tune up
and so on, but in the end the parts will wear down to the point of
needing replaced. You may live longer if you get your heart fixed or
some other part of your body that is in trouble dealt with, but in the
end you ...[text shortened]... k to things are in a
state of wearing down, dying off, however you want to describe it.
Kelly

The type of wear and tear you're talking about happens, no question, but it's not the kind of thing that gets passed on to your children (barring certain things like thalidomide-induced flipper babies, and other chemical changes to the reproductive system). Lamark originally thought this way, using the idea of a giraffe continuously stretching its neck during life to make it longer and somehow passing this trait on to its children. Unfortunately, Lamarck was refuted by Darwin. This wear and tear can no more perpetuate the decay of humanity than you can pass on your tattoos to your kids.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I have already clearly answered that twice -natural selection continually weeds-out the bad ones while continually selecting the
good ones. "

Repeating what you believe does not prove your point, I ask you how
do you accept only the good ones stay when mutations are not good or
bad they are just mutations? They come and go without a reason so
when ...[text shortened]... o one is really
making a selection with respect to mutations so explain this please.
Kelly

It's true, mutations that improve fitness don't always get passed on. It may be the case that the mutation doesn't lend itself to duplication during procreation, or the mutation is unstable, or other mutations down the road overwhelm the initial benefit with severe disbenefit, or the lucky creature simply gets its head smashed in with a boulder. However, over long periods of time (i.e. hundreds and thousands of generations), the mutations that benefit fitness will generally last and proliferate through the species. If you want something more concrete, try the Price equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection

What on earth do you mean? -Natural selection is not a “person“.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The good designer will give the eye to each species that suits them
for the life they are about to lead.

In what circumstance is it beneficial to have blind spots?

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I have already clearly answered that twice -natural selection continually weeds-out the bad ones while continually selecting the
good ones. "

Repeating what you believe does not prove your point, I ask you how
do you accept only the good ones stay when mutations are not good or
bad they are just mutations? They come and go without a reason so
when o one is really
making a selection with respect to mutations so explain this please.
Kelly

… Repeating what you believe does not prove your point,..…

Correct -but it is not just a “belief” but an “argument” and an argument can prove my point.

… I ask you how do you accept only the good ones stay when mutations are not good or bad they are just mutations? They come and go without a reason so
when a good one comes it can go too, the reasons for them are there
are no reasons for them, a bad one can cancel out a good one, so
I'll ask you again if their isn't anything directing them, why would they
stay? I believe some here have already agreed no one is really
making a selection with respect to mutations so explain this please. .…

How many times do you want me to repeat the same argument?
Let me give you another shot at this by elaborating greatly on the obvious:

The good mutations generally stay in the long run because natural selection selects them and this is how natural selection works:

In this narrow context “good” mutations are “good” purely in the sense that they give the individuals a competitive advantage over those that do not have those mutations thus they increase the chances of an individual passing on its genes onto the next generation and those genes would include the gene that is responsible for that “good” mutation and, with luck, if the individual manages to survive to reproduce, it would pass on that good mutation onto its offspring which would thus have the benefit of that good mutation that increases the chances of passing it onto their offspring and …so on and thus eventually the good mutation will spread to the whole population -can you see that this must logically follow from the fact that if the mutation increases the chances of the individual passing on its genes then over many generations it probably would eventually spread to the whole population?

-if you want evidence of this actually happening then just consider the rapid spread of the DDT resistant mosquitoes in Africa and Asia -in some places where DDT was continually used the WHOLE of the local mosquito population has the mutation for DDT resistance rendering the insecticide useless -what else could have caused the whole population have this mutation if not some kind of “selection” although in this case it isn’t “natural” selection because man sprays DDT but that doesn’t change the fact that it PROVES that a selection process CAN select for a mutation when that selection process did not “intend” nor “plan” to select for that mutation. There are other examples of similar selection such as the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria etc.

But your question seems to be why are the good mutations maintained in the population once they have spread -the answer is, of course, again, natural selection. Natural selection doesn’t stop once virtually all the population has that good mutation (why should it?) because natural selection is working all the time (why would it not be? -there is nothing stopping it). And, random mutations occur all the time and there would be at any one given moment of time a few individuals that have been born without that good mutation and, because the good mutation gives those that have it a competitive advantage for survival, those individuals that don’t have it would have a competitive disadvantage over those that do have that good mutation and would thus be less likely to pass on their genes onto the next generation and any that do survive to reproduce and produce offspring would produce offspring that don’t have the benefit of the good mutation and thus are in turn less likely to survive and …so on until that lineage that hasn’t got that good mutation is weeded out and thus the vast majority of individuals within the population continually have the good mutation.

Any “bad” mutations are eventually illuminated by the same process for exactly the same reasons. “bad” mutation occur all the time but they are continually weeded out well before they spread to the whole population because natural selection is happening ALL the time -not just when there is a significant change in the population.

-so this is the argument for evolution and as you can see it is not merely a “statement of belief “but an actual “argument” because I have explained why the evolution process makes sense.