Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
truth hurts?

do you wish to challenge what he said? that yours is an uninformed, unscientific opinion?

would you like to present a peer reviewed, supported by evidence scientific paper?

Is it fair then to say that science is your authority or god that you accept?
Has science by observing facts about the creation been able to create anything?
Our Univarsal Sovereign Creator JEHOVAH God is the masterful One who has made all things through His Son known as Jesus Christ.
Man can only observe and, barely scratching the surface, begin to learn His ways.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are several different eyes and stories applied to each, that doesn't mean any of the
theories around those eyes are correct.

No, but that's not what we're talking about. Again, the argument from irreducible complexity is that there are biological structures so complex and intertwined that if you remove just one part, the entire structure fails, and therefore this could not have been the result of a step-wise evolutionary process. The refutation is that, look, there's an organism with only some of the parts, and it's doing just fine. Irreducible complexity debunked. End of story.

Originally posted by roigam
Is it fair then to say that science is your authority or god that you accept?
Has science by observing facts about the creation been able to create anything?
Our Univarsal Sovereign Creator JEHOVAH God is the masterful One who has made all things through His Son known as Jesus Christ.
Man can only observe and, barely scratching the surface, begin to learn His ways.

Science is not a religion. There's no canon of truth written in stone, no authoritative priests, no places of worship, no mystical rituals, no magic, no searching for absolute eternal truths, no looking for gods or supernatural phenomenons (excluding pseudo science of course). There's simply nothing religious about science. Strong theories today may be flicked out of view tomorrow if new evidence contradicts them, by the very same people who considers them strong theories today. Science works. Get over it.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, but that's not what we're talking about. Again, the argument from irreducible complexity is that there are biological structures so complex and intertwined that if you remove just one part, the entire structure fails, and therefore this could not have been the result of a step-wise evolutionary process. The refutation is that, look, there's an organism wi ...[text shortened]... only some of the parts, and it's doing just fine. Irreducible complexity debunked. End of story.

Oh well, if you say so!

Originally posted by C Hess
Science is not a religion. There's no canon of truth written in stone, no authoritative priests, no places of worship, no mystical rituals, no magic, no searching for absolute eternal truths, no looking for gods or supernatural phenomenons (excluding pseudo science of course). There's simply nothing religious about science. Strong theories today may be flicke ...[text shortened]... m, by the very same people who considers them strong theories today. Science works. Get over it.

"no authoritative priests"
LOL, really! You seem to have that job, we must take your word for your claims and when
question it is just your word we are given. You seem to demand faith, don't seem to want
to back up the things you say! Science works as long as in your case we just accept the
things you say as true and don't ask for you to prove your points! I at least acknowledge
faith when I'm speaking about it.

Originally posted by C Hess
This is what I get for trying to preemptively help you guys not look foolish. 🙄

The point is not that the evolution of the eye went through those precise steps (in fact, there are several different kinds of eyes with different evolutionary histories). The point is to refute the argument that half an eye, or third an eye, or any part an eye, can't f ...[text shortened]... have evolved incrementally (what scientists call evolution and you call microevolution).

You going to bother showing us the science behind the very first step in the evolution of
the eye that does not require us to just believe it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh well, if you say so!

No, not because I say so, but because it is so. If person A claims X, and person B refutes that claim, then the claim is pretty much debunked. I'll simplify it further:

Creationist claim:
The eye is irreducibly complex because it won't function with some parts missing.

Refutation:
There's an organism with only some parts in common with a human eye, and it's working fine for them.

Conclusion:
The eye is not irreducibly complex.


See? It's not because I say so, but because it is so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"no authoritative priests"
LOL, really! You seem to have that job, we must take your word for your claims and when
question it is just your word we are given. You seem to demand faith, don't seem to want
to back up the things you say! Science works as long as in your case we just accept the
things you say as true and don't ask for you to prove your points! I at least acknowledge
faith when I'm speaking about it.

The only authority in science is evidence, and she's a merciless authority too.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, not because I say so, but because it is so. If person A claims X, and person B refutes that claim, then the claim is pretty much debunked. I'll simplify it further:

Creationist claim:
The eye is irreducibly complex because it won't function with some parts missing.

Refutation:
There's an organism with only some parts in common with a human eye, ...[text shortened]...
The eye is not irreducibly complex.


See? It's not because I say so, but because it is so.

I'm interested in refuting the evolutionary claims about the eye, I have asked twice now
for you to produce the evidence for the first stage of it so we can see it isn't a matter of
faith.

If I were refuting the claims you were making about irreducibly my questions would be
about that. With respect to something working or not working with pieces not being there
I suggest you look at a car, it can work without the back seats, but take away the motor
not so much. Your debate is sort of useless, and whoever this "Creationist" is that you
seem to have a hard time with, maybe you could call them out by name, you know be
specific.

Originally posted by C Hess
The only authority in science is evidence, and she's a merciless authority too.

I'm still waiting on the evidence for the first part of the evolution of the eye, you have some
or is it faith?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm still waiting on the evidence for the first part of the evolution of the eye, you have some
or is it faith?

Development of Photoreceptor cells.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Development of Photoreceptor cells.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell

I must of missed the part where it said it had something to do with the first part of the
evolution of the eye. I may have missed it, could you highlight the portion that you made
you think this answered my question?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I must of missed the part where it said it had something to do with the first part of the
evolution of the eye. I may have missed it, could you highlight the portion that you made
you think this answered my question?

A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye. You wanted to know what it was so I told you.

From a different wiki -

'The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots".'

'The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane.'

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

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm interested in refuting the evolutionary claims about the eye, I have asked twice now
for you to produce the evidence for the first stage of it so we can see it isn't a matter of
faith.

If I were refuting the claims you were making about irreducibly my questions would be
about that. With respect to something working or not working with pieces not b ...[text shortened]... ou
seem to have a hard time with, maybe you could call them out by name, you know be
specific.

The argument from irreducible complexity is used by most (if not all) creationists. Besides, I'm not interested in addressing someone in specific, but simply to explain why the argument fails.

As for your car analogy, take away the engine, and the car is still useful as shelter or for storage.

So, I take it that we're clear about the argument from irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked? If you want details about how the human eye actually evolved, read the relevant material. What am I? A free-of-charge teacher?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/