Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Oh God, not that worn-out, broken, ill-thought-through, dishonest Unintelligent Design argument again.

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 couple ...[text shortened]... decades of it being bashed into the ground means that you lack one or both of those.

Richard

Go away no one is forcing you to read or post, you think this is
worn out and done to death go do something else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Go away no one is forcing you to read or post, you think this is
worn out and done to death go do something else.
Kelly

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.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The start of the eye.
Kelly

Here is some real expert info on the evolution of the eye with various intermediate stages.

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

And on page 3 of:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page03.html

It says:

“Starting with the simplest light-sensing device, a single photoreceptor cell, it is possible to draw a series of incremental changes that would lead directly to the lens-and-retina eye. None of the intermediate stages are unreasonable, since each requires nothing more than an incremental change in structure: an increase in cell number, a change in surface curvature, a slight increase in transparency.”

Also:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

http://evolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_of_the_human_eye

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8

Originally posted by KellyJay
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.

And it has been proved possible via computer programs (as I have mentioned before). Maybe you should first prove that it is unlikely, as so far that is not a known fact but simply your opinion.

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,
When I was younger I tended to accept as factual what my parents or teachers told me was factual. Now I am older I am more skeptical, and have questioned evolution and many other scientific theories. So far I have not found the Theory of Evolution to be wanting. However many people do accept as fact what the scientific community tells them, and I think that they are largely justified in doing so if they do no personally have the time or skill to investigate for themselves.

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.
I would never intentionally marginalize or belittle someone simply for questioning the Theory of Evolution, I do tend to belittle you, because you clearly do understand the concepts involved but try to attack them with false arguments or more commonly mere implications which you refuse to go into detail on and it is frequently clear that you know them to be false and that you attack for purely religious reasons.
You also have a tendency of running away from any argument that you think you are losing using with statements to the effect that it is all a matter of opinion or perspective.

So the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
What do you define as the 'eye' and what would you consider its 'start'?
I think you already know most peoples opinions as to likely scenarios. Here is my best guess:
1. An organism evolved light sensitive cells and used them for purposes other than sight. (even plants do this)
2. An organism evolved a basic nervous system.
3. The organism started to use the light sensitive cells to react via its nervous system directly to changes in light.
In my opinion, that could be classified as an eye.

Originally posted by sonhouse
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.

I think its better said that you don't why it is that way, not that it is
wrong. I also think your complaint about that also shows a major
weakness in the evolutionary argument as well, but I'm hopping for
a little more on how people think the eye started before I continue
with my argument.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Here is some real expert info on the evolution of the eye with various intermediate stages.

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

And on page 3 of:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page03.html

It says:

“Starting with the simplest light-sensing dev ...[text shortened]... suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_of_the_human_eye

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8

I'll look at your links before I move on, but for the moment I want to
stay on the beginning of the eye. Thank you for the links too by the
way.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
And it has been proved possible via computer programs (as I have mentioned before). Maybe you should first prove that it is unlikely, as so far that is not a known fact but simply your opinion.

[b]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,
When I was yo ous system directly to changes in light.
In my opinion, that could be classified as an eye.[/b]

How can an argument be false, because you disagree with it? You and
a few other here, I enjoy debating I don't mind a little insult from time
to time it can highlight a point, it is the non-stop insults without
addressing points that get to me. There are a few posters here who do
not add to the discussion outside of their attack on those that
disagree with them, I do not count you in that group what so ever, and
I'm glad to see your points, they make me think long and hard about
how I'm going to respond at times or worse....make me wish I had
thought a little longer about what I did say. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
And it has been proved possible via computer programs (as I have mentioned before). Maybe you should first prove that it is unlikely, as so far that is not a known fact but simply your opinion.

[b]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,
When I was yo ...[text shortened]... ous system directly to changes in light.
In my opinion, that could be classified as an eye.[/b]

"And it has been proved possible via computer programs (as I have mentioned before). Maybe you should first prove that it is unlikely, as so far that is not a known fact but simply your opinion."

I also disagreed with your statement to and told you why as well.
Computer programs are just that, programs, they do what we tell them
to do. If you are suggesting someone wrote a program to improve
over time some piece of software and it did it, you think that is proof
against design?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll look at your links before I move on, but for the moment I want to
stay on the beginning of the eye. Thank you for the links too by the
way.
Kelly

…I want to stay on the beginning of the eye. …

The links I have shown explains the ways the evolution of the eye probably started as well as the intermediate links in the evolutionary path way.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How can an argument be false, because you disagree with it?

Maybe 'false' is the wrong word. Maybe 'poor', 'terrible' or 'fatally flawed' would fit better. My point was that you frequently use arguments that have have obvious flaws and have been addressed before. You also do not appear to tackle them honestly. For example in another thread you recently said:
Math is required once DNA was discovered and we could figuire out the odds of some of this stuff occuring, but it is ignored
Kelly
I have questioned that statement and its implications in so many ways, yet you have simply left it hanging instead of admitting that you were either mistaken, or not clear about what you meant. As far as I can tell, your only reason for posting it was to attempt to shed some doubt. Its a popular tactic amongst theists who want to discredit science that they consider threatening to their belief system. I consider it dishonest.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also disagreed with your statement to and told you why as well.
Computer programs are just that, programs, they do what we tell them
to do. If you are suggesting someone wrote a program to improve
over time some piece of software and it did it, you think that is proof
against design?
Kelly

I am a full time programmer and I can assure you that computer programs frequently do not do what you tell them to.
It is perfectly possible to insert random variables into a computer program.
A computer program can be used to simulate certain aspects of evolution, and it has been shown conclusively that a selection process similar to natural selection can result in increasing complexity over time, that is not designed nor requires any intelligence as input.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think its better said that you don't why it is that way, not that it is
wrong. I also think your complaint about that also shows a major
weakness in the evolutionary argument as well, but I'm hopping for
a little more on how people think the eye started before I continue
with my argument.
Kelly

The idea that the human eye is inferior does not weaken evolution, it strengthens it. Evolution does not always get things perfect, seldom, in fact.
For instance, the eagle eye has 5 times the rods and cones of the human eye, a far superior instrument of vision. It puts the human eye to shame.
The eye started out as photoreactive chemicals in bacteria and that led to animals like jellyfish with photoreceptors concentrated in small regions and the small changes evolved into full blown eyes. The eye also independently evolved several times all over the globe. I don't think you quite understand the implications of the blood vessels being in front of the cones in the human eye. That is a big flaw that effects our vision negatively. An intelligent designer would have known that and simply put the vessels in back where they belong. The fact they are in front shows how evolution does not always pick the best design. No way would an intelligent designer done that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am a full time programmer and I can assure you that computer programs frequently do not do what you tell them to.
It is perfectly possible to insert random variables into a computer program.
A computer program can be used to simulate certain aspects of evolution, and it has been shown conclusively that a selection process similar to natural selection ...[text shortened]... in increasing complexity over time, that is not designed nor requires any intelligence as input.

If you are a full time programmer you should know that is all they
do, nothing more, nothing less! They may not do what you want, but
they most certainly do in deed do what you tell them too, if not you
have a system that is completely unreliable.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
The idea that the human eye is inferior does not weaken evolution, it strengthens it. Evolution does not always get things perfect, seldom, in fact.
For instance, the eagle eye has 5 times the rods and cones of the human eye, a far superior instrument of vision. It puts the human eye to shame.
The eye started out as photoreactive chemicals in bacteria and ...[text shortened]... evolution does not always pick the best design. No way would an intelligent designer done that.

How about the fact that an octopus' eye is a better evolved eye than a vertebrate's one? Wouldn't
an intelligent designer use the best eye he made for his prize creation, humankind?

While it is unsurprising -- given the advantage that the eye has over the unsighted in terms of
survival -- the idea that it evolved independently is just totally awesome to me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by sonhouse
The idea that the human eye is inferior does not weaken evolution, it strengthens it. Evolution does not always get things perfect, seldom, in fact.
For instance, the eagle eye has 5 times the rods and cones of the human eye, a far superior instrument of vision. It puts the human eye to shame.
The eye started out as photoreactive chemicals in bacteria and evolution does not always pick the best design. No way would an intelligent designer done that.

I do not consider the human eye inferior, it is what we have to live
and function, as flies have eyes that do the same for them, as fish
have eyes that do that for them. You claiming you can do better is
a joke as far as I’m concern, you may have some improvements you
think should have been made, but until you design a visual system
that will last through generations I say you are just blowing smoke,
on your design improvements. It is no different than saying you have
an improvement for CPU design, if they just make it so they get some
function to work this way instead of that way, it would be better.
Kelly