Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What is the premise for this belief?

What reasoning/evidence has led you to conclude this?

Creation is a special event, the creation story I believe to be true had
mankind living forever until the fall, after the fall man still lived to be
hundreds of years old. After time our lives became shorter as our
lives degraded, I also believe that many of the species we see today
are because all life started falling into natural selection and after time
they too started dividing into other sub-species of the origional kind
that life started as.

Example: whatever the first dog kind was it was the fore father of all
other dog kinds.

This also lends itself to explain why fossils appear the way they do,
but not the way we date them.
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, our eye was like the octopus' eye -- with the nerve fibers behind
the retina rather than in front which creates a blind spot?

Is that your contention?

Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?

Nemesio

Because it is easier for things to degrade and fall a part than improve
over time.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because it is easier for things to degrade and fall a part than improve
over time.
Kelly

This was not what he asked.

You forgot the...
Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?
...part

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because it is easier for things to degrade and fall a part than improve
over time.
Kelly

Who said life was easy? But you're forgetting that it's actually even harder to create progeny once you've fallen apart.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because it is easier for things to degrade and fall a part than improve
over time.
Kelly

If a living thing was “degraded” or “falling apart” then it would be much less likely to pass on its genes because natural selection would select against it! Therefore, natural selection would select those individuals that are not “degraded” or “falling apart” and those genes that they carry that don’t give any harmful effect would be passed on to the next generation in favour of those genes that do have harmful effects.

Just very basic understanding of evolution should tell you that living things don’t evolve to be less able to survive by being “degraded” because that wouldn’t make much sense.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a special event, the creation story I believe to be true had
mankind living forever until the fall, after the fall man still lived to be
hundreds of years old. After time our lives became shorter as our
lives degraded, I also believe that many of the species we see today
are because all life started falling into natural selection and after t ...[text shortened]... ends itself to explain why fossils appear the way they do,
but not the way we date them.
Kelly

That doesn’t answer either of my questions.

by questions were:

What is the premise for this belief?

What reasoning/evidence has led you to conclude this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because it is easier for things to degrade and fall a part than improve
over time.
Kelly

Then you're not talking about evolution. Evolution works on the principal
that things that are beneficial to the organism (where beneficial connotes
'increases the likelihood of survival'😉 are more likely to persist over time.

Further, over the past hundred years or so, we have had better nutrition,
better access to health care, better living conditions, and better hygiene,
to name a few things. Why hasn't this led to a return to the more effective
physiology that you believe existed at Creation?

But you didn't really answer my questions, which I will rephrase more
carefully this time. Given that you believe that you acknowledge that
the present human eye, with its blind spot, is inferior to the eye of an
octopus, which lacks it but is otherwise the same:

1) What explanation can you offer for why the eye underwent a physiological
change in which the retina moves behind the nerve fibers rather than
remaining in front of it and thus creating a blind spot?

2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
So within the flow of evolution, there are positive mutations in DNA,
these cause alterations within a living system that should get passed
down to later generations building upon one another through natural
selection. The changes are realized by living systems as they go
through their processes of birth, or however species multiplies. Species
live, mu ...[text shortened]... the start of the eye was when, how, and under what conditions
again, best guess please?
Kelly

One of the of the main reasons I find evolution for the eye hard to
accept as a rational explanation is the basic make up of our visual
acuities. Within all structures the building blocks themselves are very
important, the way the parts are put together is also extremely
important, before we even start to concern ourselves with the various
diverse functions of each of our individual parts especially if those
parts are part of a system, because that makes things more
complicated to a very high level, even more so if our system is just a
subsystem in an even larger one.

Going back to how evolution supposedly works, DNA gets altered
through mutation, this again didn’t utilize any design or blueprints;
each piece of every system was blindly put together without rhyme or
reason without forethought to how the system was going to be
affected afterwards.

Each piece of our Visual System was put together blindly without
regard to success or failure if evolution did it so every piece:

1. Dimensions were correctly crafted, the useful shapes just occurred
properly. The eyes fit in the sockets of the skull and so on.
2. The material make up was correctly crafted. We do not have bones
where are eye balls are, we do not have hair where are nerves are, we
do not have urine where are blood is, what we have are all the parts
put together with very beneficial structures made of the proper
material that allows for useful work to occur.
3. Functions occur at the right times and stops at the right times.

There are automatic things that occur without forethought such as
blinking, a beating heart, and things that occur with thought as
looking left or right and so on.

I do not know how many people here have built and hung a door, or
window, or made a bird house, but think about this!

• Getting the right material may seem a little thing, but do it without
forethought.
• Getting all of your material in the right dimensions is hard, but do it
without forethought.
• Getting all of your material in the right dimensions along with having
your material made of the right substances can be difficult, but do it
without forethought.
• Getting everything in the right place at the right time so that
whatever needs to be added isn’t defeated by the work that had gone
on before can be hard, but do it without forethought.
• Getting the right amount of work using the right amount of energy is
hard, but do it without forethought.

Do it all without forethought or regard if it works or not!
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Then you're not talking about evolution. Evolution works on the principal
that things that are beneficial to the organism (where beneficial connotes
'increases the likelihood of survival'😉 are more likely to persist over time.

Further, over the past hundred years or so, we have had better nutrition,
better access to health care, better living conditio ...[text shortened]... ating a blind spot?

2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?

Nemesio

You are talking about design not evolution if you are going to use
the word useful, there are no worries of usefulness in a mutation in
DNA. You want to use the word useful or beneicial as if there is a care
if a mutation is going to allow for that you are walking towards design.
Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are talking about design not evolution if you are going to use
the word useful, there are no worries of usefulness in a mutation in
DNA. You want to use the word useful or beneicial as if there is a care
if a mutation is going to allow for that you are walking towards design.
Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next.
Kelly

… Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next. .…

That is clearly not what Nemesio said nor implied and you know it.
Nobody is suggesting that it is not the case that “natural selection acts after the mutation” because that wouldn’t make any sense and you just made this up.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This was not what he asked.

You forgot the...
[b]Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?
...part[/b]

I suggest life is a Self-stabilization system; it corrects itself by healing
or whatever it takes to continue; however, over time the corrections have
caused variety in life. Human life because of its place among all other
life forms do not have the shift in variations to the same degree as
other life does, like the variety we see in dogs and so on. We do see
some variety among us as in our looks, but that is just a cosmic. All of
us are the same color for example, it is just that some of us have more
of it than others. The core of who and what we are remains intact across
the entire human race, people are just people. After time corrections
of errors left some systems to degrade, things wear down there is
a law you should know about that talks about that point.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next. .…

That is clearly not what Nemesio said nor implied and you know it.
Nobody is suggesting that it is not the case that “natural selection acts after the mutation” because that wouldn’t make any sense and you just made this up.[/b]

You think natural selection causes specific mutations to occur?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next. .…

That is clearly not what Nemesio said nor implied and you know it.
Nobody is suggesting that it is not the case that “natural selection acts after the mutation” because that wouldn’t make any sense and you just made this up.[/b]

I just made this up, what are you talking about?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That doesn’t answer either of my questions.

by questions were:

What is the premise for this belief?

What reasoning/evidence has led you to conclude this?

I miss read your post, I'll give this more thought and a better answer
later.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I suggest life is a Self-stabilization system; it corrects itself by healing
or whatever it takes to continue; however, over time the corrections have
caused variety in life. Human life because of its place among all other
life forms do not have the shift in variations to the same degree as
other life does, like the variety we see in dogs and so on. We ...[text shortened]... rade, things wear down there is
a law you should know about that talks about that point.
Kelly

But you didn't answer his questions. You just don't want to, or you just cannot. Perhaps you are afraid to answer, because that will show how little you know, even if you pretend you know. But you cannot fool everyone.

The questions was:

Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?