I see said the blind man

The eye points out something you cannot explain away—being sensitive to light.
Exactly how and why would that happen? Being sensitive to sound, you cannot
make the case for the same reasons. Our ability to feel by touch is no different;
all of our senses are problematic.

You have to receive a signal that was previously beyond your ability to recognize
as something outside of you, before you start to grasp it as something that needs
to be understood.

Understanding any signal requires fine-tuning to receive it, let alone do anything
else. Frequencies of light and sound bouncing off something with no feelings or
light receptors make both of those outside and beyond us.

By design, all bodies, with their finetuned systems, receive these signals, and this
is done with great attention to detail. Yet, many think, under a rock, it happened
by chance! To understand light and sound, we have bodies that can receive the
range we are aware of, so the difference between being able to grasp none and
comprehending the frequencies of light and sound is huge.

Our bodies must be transformed into receivers; in addition to being receivers,
being a decoder is more difficult, as it translates experiences into something that
a consciousness can understand.

You think connecting a few cells by chance could pull off receiving light and
sound, understanding them, which means consciousness was done under a rock,
in a pond, or somewhere else by chance?

If the great evidence for this is that there are really complex systems and others
not so complex, so you CLAIM one must have happened before another, it is
blind faith on your part. You buy into evolutionary theory and are trying to make
the evidence fit, whether it does or not.

@KellyJay said
The eye points out something you cannot explain away—being sensitive to light.
Exactly how and why would that happen? Being sensitive to sound, you cannot
make the case for the same reasons. Our ability to feel by touch is no different;
all of our senses are problematic.

You have to receive a signal that was previously beyond your ability to recognize
as something ...[text shortened]... You buy into evolutionary theory and are trying to make
the evidence fit, whether it does or not.

@sonhouse said
You let the cat out of the bag when you used the word 'design'.

@KellyJay said
You prefer what accidentally shaped with benefits?

@sonhouse said
My mind is open to that, I don't know and neither do you. My mind would say a god was involved if it popped into our universe right in front of me and says, I am God, here is how it goes.
Of COURSE you would go THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS, because you KNOW GODS.

@KellyJay said
You cannot help yourself, you cannot stay on topic, you must talk about the other person, not the topic at hand.

@sonhouse said
STAY ON TOPIC. So my saying your whole POINT was to totally disregard ANY science that proports to show life could start by mud, energy and phosphorous basically, you will fight that idea till the day you die.

@KellyJay said
This is you telling me what my whole point was, without directly touching the point, instead of my motivation. You have science that promotes the idea that life comes from mud or anything else; present the evidence.

@sonhouse said
I am tired of this game, Go bitch at someone else.

Actually we have to understand one point: If we believe things to be designed we will always find evidence for it. If we believe everything having been developed by chnace and kept when it proved helpful we will find evidence for it.

Truth is not the question here, since it can't be found by mere humans.

So yes it is surprising that we find eyes in ceratures. And yes some creatures see different spectra than others. E.g. bees see in the ultraviolet and some snakes see in the infrared.

And yes if we follow the idea of intelligent design it has been done by God (and we don't know why he gave us humans only a part of the visual spectrum).
If we adhere to evolution even having a "proto-eye" that can only tell us light/dark difference in some way will have some advantage over competitors and the owner will survive with a higher probability and thus it is kept in their descendants (until it is not an advantage, thus some fish living in the absolute dark have no working eyes and it is not a disadvantage).

If we want to do science here we would aks for an experiment to make things clear. But alas nobody can suggest and experiment that once and for all clears such questions.
And fun fact: If answers can only be given by God science is meaningless.

@KellyJay said


You have to receive a signal that was previously beyond your ability to recognize
as something outside of you, before you start to grasp it as something that needs
to be understood.

@KellyJay said
The eye points out something you cannot explain away—being sensitive to light.
Exactly how and why would that happen? Being sensitive to sound, you cannot
make the case for the same reasons. Our ability to feel by touch is no different;
all of our senses are problematic.

You have to receive a signal that was previously beyond your ability to recognize
as something ...[text shortened]... You buy into evolutionary theory and are trying to make
the evidence fit, whether it does or not.

@KellyJay said
You cannot help yourself, you cannot stay on topic, you must talk about the other person, not the topic at hand.

@sonhouse said
BTW, I think you know that was a joke, the whole thing went:

I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

@KellyJay said
Thought so, well hoped so.