Originally posted by NemesioWell I suggest the octopus got the eye it needed, it seems to function
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
well as we do with what we got.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]DNA is a code correct, filled with information? It is put together in
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:
[b]Math is required once DNA was discovered and we coul ...[text shortened]... science that they consider threatening to their belief system. I consider it dishonest.
such a way that we can figure out all the correct amount of data
points required to write it properly, just as we can look at a book,
and count the letters, the words, or the paragraphs in it. With that
information we can see the odds of getting that code written as we
can looking at a deck of cards that was shuffled for quite some time,
and us calling out the correct sequence before we start flipping the
cards over to see if we called out the right sequence or not.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayExcept we have a blind spot, KellyJay, because the retina is behind the nerve fibers. What
Well I suggest the octopus got the eye it needed, it seems to function
well as we do with what we got.
Kelly
rationale can you give for an 'intelligent designer's' giving us something that poses even a slight
disadvantage, one which could actually cause undeserved harm? Octopodes don't have this
problem because its eye is structured differently. It is otherwise essentially the same.
What sort of intelligence is indicated by giving a creature an inferior eye, especially the most
important creation (humankind)?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNice argument! 😉
Except we have a blind spot, KellyJay, because the retina is behind the nerve fibers. What
rationale can you give for an 'intelligent designer's' giving us something that poses even a slight
disadvantage, one which could actually cause undeserved harm? Octopodes don't have this
problem because its eye is structured differently. It is otherwise essent ...[text shortened]... a creature an inferior eye, especially the most
important creation (humankind)?
Nemesio
There are probably a lot of other design flaws in humans too.
1. My osteopath tells me that the human spine was not designed to stand upright.
2. Whats an appendix for?
3. Some of us apparently have a redundant tendon from knee to heel - a evolutionary left-over - its also found in frogs!
4. Our 3rd and 4th nostrils. (Again vestiges from earlier days!)
If we were intelligently designed it was by committee!!!
Originally posted by KellyJayI'd like to see into the UV like insects and have better night vision. These things are possible; why didnt we get them?
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 thro ...[text shortened]... e it so they get some
function to work this way instead of that way, it would be better.
Kelly
Also ability to sense magnetic fields (like pigeons) or electric fields (like sharks) would be cool.
Was God just mean when he dished out our senses?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Actually, now we know what the appendix does. It is a storehouse for friendly bacteria. When we get sick from something, it usually overwhelms the gut bacteria and when we are on the mend, the friendly bacteria comes out of the appendix and refills into the intestines again. At least for those who haven't had them pulled.
Nice argument! 😉
There are probably a lot of other design flaws in humans too.
1. My osteopath tells me that the human spine was not designed to stand upright.
2. Whats an appendix for?
3. Some of us apparently have a redundant tendon from knee to heel - a evolutionary left-over - its also found in frogs!
4. Our 3rd and 4th nostrils. (Again vestiges from earlier days!)
If we were intelligently designed it was by committee!!!
I still have mine for some reason. No tonsils though.
Interesting thread.
But still, isn't the title "Evolution of the human eye" somewhat wrong? Has the human eyes underwent any evolution during the history of the humans as a specie? I don't think so, more a devolution if I may say so...
For 30 thousands of years ago, if you had a bad vision you were out. You couldn't survive for a long time. And you couldn't bring your genes further in the chain of evolution. Nowadays, even the smallest children wear glasses, and you can live your life without any problems with bad sight. Therefore, there is no benefit for the human race to evolve better eye sight. The thing we really evolve in is the intelligence, not the eye sight.
This is of course not facts, only my opinion. What's your opinion in the matter?
Originally posted by FabianFnasYep, considering the # of people who need glasses, without them, we would have a hard time surviving in the wilderness, having to track animals for food, etc. I have 20/250 vision and without my lenses I am blind as a bat. Our supposedly perfect eyes aren't, eh.
Interesting thread.
But still, isn't the title "Evolution of the human eye" somewhat wrong? Has the human eyes underwent any evolution during the history of the humans as a specie? I don't think so, more a devolution if I may say so...
For 30 thousands of years ago, if you had a bad vision you were out. You couldn't survive for a long time. And you ...[text shortened]... ight.
This is of course not facts, only my opinion. What's your opinion in the matter?
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting. Thanks for that!
Actually, now we know what the appendix does. It is a storehouse for friendly bacteria. When we get sick from something, it usually overwhelms the gut bacteria and when we are on the mend, the friendly bacteria comes out of the appendix and refills into the intestines again. At least for those who haven't had them pulled.
I still have mine for some reason. No tonsils though.
Isn't the appendix the remnants of a second stomach? Interesting that it should evolve another purpose.
Originally posted by NemesioAs FabianFnas pointed out and as I brought up in another thread
Except we have a blind spot, KellyJay, because the retina is behind the nerve fibers. What
rationale can you give for an 'intelligent designer's' giving us something that poses even a slight
disadvantage, one which could actually cause undeserved harm? Octopodes don't have this
problem because its eye is structured differently. It is otherwise essent ...[text shortened]... a creature an inferior eye, especially the most
important creation (humankind)?
Nemesio
this could be explained by life breaking down too, splitting into
simplier forms over time as well. You seem to only look at it as
building up to more complex systems over time when it could
be breaking down into simplier life forms over time too.
Kelly
Originally posted by wolfgang59Hardly, it could show you that the design was quite something at
Nice argument! 😉
There are probably a lot of other design flaws in humans too.
1. My osteopath tells me that the human spine was not designed to stand upright.
2. Whats an appendix for?
3. Some of us apparently have a redundant tendon from knee to heel - a evolutionary left-over - its also found in frogs!
4. Our 3rd and 4th nostrils. (Again vestiges from earlier days!)
If we were intelligently designed it was by committee!!!
the beginning and started breaking down over time which causes flaws
over time to show up as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave you read these, and these do not give you pause over the
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
evolution of the eye?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAn interesting proposition KJ, do you have any evidence to support it?
Hardly, it could show you that the design was quite something at
the beginning and started breaking down over time which causes flaws
over time to show up as well.
Kelly
As far as I am aware, no cases have been found of life forms becoming less complex through time, as I think you are suggesting.
Is there any evidence of eyesight being better in the distant past than it is now? Were eyes 'built' the other way round without nerves obscuring the light-receptors in the past?
What sort of mechanism would drive this? Surely a predator or indeed prey animal with worse eyesight than its contemporaries (all else being equal) would be less likely to survive and reproduce than its more visually able peers?
Can we see anything like this happening in the wild? Are bacteria that are less able to fight our antibiotics proliferating more than those that are more resistant? Are our antibiotics becoming more effective?
As far as I am aware, the answer to all these questions is a resounding No. Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be found in every case.
Can anyone think of other ways to test KJs hypothese that we are de-evolving? Can anyone think of any evidence from the real world that would support it?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease, don't misinterpret my words, KJ. Don't even refer to my words to prove your story. Creation by an intelligent being is downright wrong.
As FabianFnas pointed out and as I brought up in another thread
this could be explained by life breaking down too, splitting into
simplier forms over time as well. You seem to only look at it as
building up to more complex systems over time when it could
be breaking down into simplier life forms over time too.
Kelly
If we have a devolution in human eys, doesn't this prove that your gods hand is not even near the creation of man life or anything? And as I said, 30 thousands of years, not 6000 years as the black book with thin pages says. Do you really think your god is so evil that he acepts devolution of man's eyes?
Please, KJ, you have to learn a lot more about the anatomy of the eye, human eyes in particular, and evolution in general.
Originally posted by KellyJay…Have you read these, …
Have you read these, and these do not give you pause over the
evolution of the eye?
Kelly
Yes -some are interesting.
…and these do not give you pause over the
evolution of the eye? . . .…
“pause”? do you mean “doubt“? -if so, the answer is no -why should they make me doubt?