Go back
Evolution of the human eye.

Evolution of the human eye.

Science

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Why not talk about it before it happens? -there is nothing stopping you.
My desire to for one, if you want to discuss it, discuss it.
Right now for me it is just a scifi story, and with that you can make it
whatever you want it to be, regardless of how anyone else thinks about
it.
Kelly

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure, I read some of the things posted here and some I do not,
if to carry on our conversation helps in my reading your link, please
post it again. I will read it.
Kelly
Here are two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogeny

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, the part where I said, it couldn't happen on its own without help
sort of implies with the right help it could now doesn't it?
Kelly
What is "the right help"? Can anyone provide "the right help"?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you want, he makes up the rules as he goes, he setup the
conditions as he plays, it doesn't matter what anyone else says if
he writes a story it is his story.
Kelly
You sound like a two year old pouting.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Here is a discovery about the evolution of the eye, living beings with the simplest eyes possible, just a couple of cells in each eye, notice, 2 eyes, 4 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell guiding this little guy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140705.htm

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a discovery about the evolution of the eye, living beings with the simplest eyes possible, just a couple of cells in each eye, notice, 2 eyes, 4 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell guiding this little guy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140705.htm
Oh, this would be the ultimate proof that the anti-evolutionists, i.e. anti-science creationists, are wrong, and obsolete.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
Here are two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogeny
Read them, your point?
Kelly

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
Other than the ecosystem example I provided earlier, yes:

1. Old Faithful
2. Stalagmites, especially the "Witch's Finger" in Carlsbad Caverns
3. The Grand Canyon
4. The Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland
You are telling me that you believe Old Faithful is a system actually
on par with a living system, any living system, or any of these other
examples?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
What is "the right help"? Can anyone provide "the right help"?
There are a lot of things in this life that are designed, from ant hills,
birds nests, bee hives, alarm clocks and depending upon the level
of complexity we can look at what is required to work it all out, it does
follow we can duplicate the feats.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
You sound like a two year old pouting.
Please, if all you wish to do is insult me I'll just write you off, as I
pointed out any made up story is just that, a made up story you can
make it mean whatever you want it too.
Kelly

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a discovery about the evolution of the eye, living beings with the simplest eyes possible, just a couple of cells in each eye, notice, 2 eyes, 4 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell guiding this little guy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140705.htm
"Studying the larvae of the marine ragworm Platynereis dumerilii, the scientists found that a nerve connects the photoreceptor cell of the eyespot and the cells that bring about the swimming motion of the larvae. The photoreceptor detects light and converts it into an electrical signal that travels down its neural projection, which makes a connection with a band of cells endowed with cilia. These cilia - thin, hair-like projections - beat to displace water and bring about movement."

Some of the earlier posts in the thread about eye dealt with this, this
actually should clue you in how unlikely all of this could just happen!
This describes a system to allow even the simplest of eyes to react
to light, it isn't just a cell becomes light sensitive and wall-la we have
the ability to detect light. Every time you add to the process items
that are required it lessens the probability could have occurred without
direction or something guiding the process.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Studying the larvae of the marine ragworm Platynereis dumerilii, the scientists found that a nerve connects the photoreceptor cell of the eyespot and the cells that bring about the swimming motion of the larvae. The photoreceptor detects light and converts it into an electrical signal that travels down its neural projection, which makes a connection with a ...[text shortened]... e probability could have occurred without
direction or something guiding the process.
Kelly
You didn't read an earlier post of mine. There certainly IS direction but it doesn't come from outside, it comes from the responsiveness of the DNA itself. DNA is a computer in of itself, it responds to stress inputs and generates new gene expressions or stops down gene expression. There is no need for an outside source to change the genetic makeup of the lifeforms involved. You don't seem to be able to understand the full implications of that statement.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
You didn't read an earlier post of mine. There certainly IS direction but it doesn't come from outside, it comes from the responsiveness of the DNA itself. DNA is a computer in of itself, it responds to stress inputs and generates new gene expressions or stops down gene expression. There is no need for an outside source to change the genetic makeup of the l ...[text shortened]... ms involved. You don't seem to be able to understand the full implications of that statement.
You are telling me DNA knows what it whats to do before it is coded
and does it, maybe I didn't understand you?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are telling me DNA knows what it whats to do before it is coded
and does it, maybe I didn't understand you?
Kelly
Here is the deal with DNA: It has been around since life started and has bits and pieces of everything that has evolved. The amount of information stored is immense. There are hidden resources inside DNA that enables a lifeform to change in response to the environment, like cold or hot. These kind of stresses activate hidden treasures inside DNA that previous lifeforms already developed so we have within us some DNA from reptiles, dino's, etc., common stuff that was around for millions of years. That is why there is so much not understood about DNA and why it would appear there to be so much "junk" in our DNA list. Not all of it is good either, lateral transfer of nasty viruses like herpes is a subset of our DNA also but there is a backup plan already in place for DNA to draw on when the lifeform in question is stress somehow, less food, dry conditions, heat, cold, whatever.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are again comparing human eyes whose lives are outside of the
water and exposed to sources of light in a way the octopus eye is not,
so saying one is better than another is apples and oranges as far as
I'm concern.
Kelly
Do you have a reason for believing that this is apples and oranges?

I say it's apples and apples. Here's my reason. The eyes are physiologically
very similar: they use a camera-style processing, with light entering in the pupil,
going through a lens and landing on a retina. Whale and dolphin eyes are
like ours, with good longevity in the water. So given that eyes with blind
spots have good longevity regardless of its exposure to water, I believe
it's reasonable to believe that a terrestrial creature with an octopus eye
would have equally good longevity.

So, what reason do you have to disbelieve this?

Nemesio