Originally posted by EladarAs Bananarama said, this is not true; and I have already explained why to you on this thread on page 9 in two separate posts -one being the 6th post down and the other being the 10th post down on page 9.
With the case of the eye, the specialized parts of the eye are not useful unless the other specialized parts are already in place. Therefore natural selection does not explain how these specialized parts evolved into what we now know as the ability to see.
I've afraid it is true. You may want to come of with an excuse as to why it could have happened without natural selection, but the fact remains that the evolution would require an evolution without natural selection. But I doubt you can understand this since it would totally invalidate your worldview.
Originally posted by CalJustYes, you did. An octopus' eye is otherwise identical, but because of the
So why the human eye has blind spots, I really don't know, I am not an opthalmologist. However, I do believe it has something to do with where the optic nerve is fastened in the back of the eye, in other words, it is a mechanical inevitability. Nevertheless, the rest of it functions pretty OK.
Did I miss your point somewhere??
placement of the nerve fibers and the resultant optic nerve, there are
no blind spots.
Why not give humans this eye (the blindspot-less one) given that they
are in all other respects essentially identical?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayLook. Either there was or wasn't a blind spot back then.
Do not know, never claimed they were. My claim was our bodies were
better at creation than they are now. Was there a blind spot back then
I have no idea.
If there was, then my question stands: Why?
If there wasn't, then my question stands: How?
The first calls into question the so-called intelligence of the Creator.
The second demands an explanation and resultant empirical evidence
to substantiate.
Entropy doesn't suffice since both eyes are equally complicated.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarAnd you have a self righteous arrogance about you like you know everything and have impeccable logic to back you up but what in fact you do have is just your delusions driven into you by ancient dogma twice removed from christianity. All you have are words written down not even by christ but by far removed writers in their quest for political/religious power and you fell for it hook line and sinker. You deny your own intelligence in your blind faith.
I've afraid it is true. You may want to come of with an excuse as to why it could have happened without natural selection, but the fact remains that the evolution would require an evolution without natural selection. But I doubt you can understand this since it would totally invalidate your worldview.
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarIt's not me covering my own intelligence with the blinders of dogma. You deny your own intelligence to further your own brainwashing.
Right back at you.😴
You emit opinions like methane released from warm tundra.
You cannot say anything new that hasn't already been said by your science hating buddies so why do you continue to just fall in line with the religious right and not actually try to think for yourself?
It was quite obvious that you would never actually look at the scientific american article I talked about since you already know everything about how it all came about and don't need actual human input.
Originally posted by EladarSticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'It's not true' doesn't
I've afraid it is true. You may want to come of with an excuse as to why it could have happened without natural selection, but the fact remains that the evolution would require an evolution without natural selection. But I doubt you can understand this since it would totally invalidate your worldview.
constitute proof. Several posters have taken some pains to justify our
opinions. You've yet to show us the same courtesy.
Did Jesus stick His fingers in His ears and ignore the objections to the
Pharisees? No. In fact, it was the Pharisees who were invariably silent
in the face of His teachings.
By not engaging in dialogue, whom are you emulating?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot 20/20, 20/10!
Creationsists seem to belive that at one point in human history we didn't have any eyes at all. But one day man said "Now I don't have eyes", a minute later" Hey, now I have eyes, and with 20/20 vision too! This must be intelligent design! How happy I am, hallelujah!"
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by sonhouseI would disagree - it is designed well for its purposes. The eye is more than a function of blood vessels. For example, our light perception at night is about as good as an owl's and it's not taking up a huge proportion of the head to allow for greater resolution. An owl's takes up proportionally much, much more space.
BTW, the human eye is not that great a design. It has one major flaw, that an intelligent designer would never have installed in it:
The blood vessels are in FRONT of the rods and cones. That limits the resolution of our vision and you can actually see the blood vessels when you look through a microscope for instance. Not an intelligent design by any means.
There are many other examples. I'm not saying there is any credibility to Intelligent Design; I merely take exception to your statement.
Originally posted by PBE6What this discussion is, has one group of people saying they think
This discussion isn't meaningless, it gets to the heart of the Intelligent Design issue.
one design is better than another, that promotes ID issue how? You
think one is better than another, one that works in a completely
different enviroment! I'm suppose to think that should give me
cause to doubt what we humans have is less than it should be when it
gives us what we need for the lives we live? It is just a matter of
complaint without cause in my opinion, if we had eyes that didn't suit
us well in how we live I'd say you have a valid argument, since that is
not the case, I say you have none.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo it would not give the animal the ability to tell light from dark, unless
[b]… I simply do not see who specialized parts of the eye would evolve at different times when each piece requires the other to be useful. ..…
That is simply not true. A light sensitive patch (the possible beginning of the evolution of a retina) would at least give an animal the ability to tell light from dark which can be of some help in sur ...[text shortened]... ect those individuals with eyes with no lens in favour of those individuals with no eyes at all.[/b]
there was some means of translating that information into a useful
piece of data. Light sensitive means what to you, a reaction to light,
and how would that be useful, does it focus on this new piece of info
and therefore get transfixed into a position that could cause it to miss
out on the food supply it is near, does it run away from this new piece
of information to avoid the food supply it is near by, how exactly does
this sensitivity work? Lets be specific here, none of this vague
thoughtless dribbling of dogma, how would that work, why would it
be helpful and not harmful, what animal got this light sensitive spot?
Details please.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioBoth eyes reside in completely different environments, inside forms
Look. Either there was or wasn't a blind spot back then.
If there was, then my question stands: Why?
If there wasn't, then my question stands: How?
The first calls into question the so-called intelligence of the Creator.
The second demands an explanation and resultant empirical evidence
to substantiate.
Entropy doesn't suffice since both eyes are equally complicated.
Nemesio
that are completely different too, how they would react over time
in my opinion would be, different.
Kelly