2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI don't know I gave you specific points of discussion, even numbered
edit: “ I'm in complete agreement, evolution does not do add to or take away from creation, the age of the earth also does not add to or
take away from creation. Specific views about creation may be in
direct conflict with specific views about evolution or the age of the
earth, but over all I have always maintained that as true.”
Not exactly KJ ...[text shortened]... to do with the fact that evolutionism is a theory that until this very moment stands perfectly.
them but nothing from you on those.
I don't care what the Pope thinks about anything he is just a guy to me
and has no affect on my life at all outside of the fact he is the leader
of a large movement worldwide.
Creation is also not a theory, it is a belief! You want theories I suggest
you stick with science.
I'm trying really hard to get you to address points about the evolution
of the eye. I'd like your opinion on why you believe, if you do that is,
that getting a light sensitive patch would be an advantage, and not
a disadvantage as I also suggested would be another possible
outcome as well. Why a light sensitive patch would even transfer
information at all, let along advantageous information? Why would it
make even the slightest difference one way or another unless with the
patch came some level of understanding to work with the new
information it was getting?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt firstly was uknown if this could be advantage or disadvantage, because it was not tested. Life is constantly risking. The species try to create their environment -the gene created his "best environment" by putting itself into a mass of proteins. The eye, an organ, was evolved by the need of the species to emerge stronger and expand, each one in its environment. It is wrong to assume that Life goes reckless here and there and that merely ascends higher and higher. Some species did it succesfully and some not, and this does not change the fact that Life takes risks.
I don't know I gave you specific points of discussion, even numbered
them but nothing from you on those.
I don't care what the Pope thinks about anything he is just a guy to me
and has no affect on my life at all outside of the fact he is the leader
of a large movement worldwide.
Creation is also not a theory, it is a belief! You want theories I su ...[text shortened]... ch came some level of understanding to work with the new
information it was getting?
Kelly
So the risk process is caused by the neseccity of the species to find the best possible environment for them, and every mutation is a very slight "rearrangment". That's why there are species who remained just as they were for many million years: they did not had to risk because they found the way to survive and prosper in a spesific environment. So that's why a light sensitive patch was prefered instead of some other mutation.
Regarding your last question: actually, with the patch came the possibility -not the "understanding"- of gaining some advantage regarding the "best environment" process.
Originally posted by black beetleEvolution does not have needs, there are no risks it as I understand
It firstly was uknown if this could be advantage or disadvantage, because it was not tested. Life is constantly risking. The species try to create their environment -the gene created his "best environment" by putting itself into a mass of proteins. The eye, an organ, was evolved by the need of the species to emerge stronger and expand, each one in its e ...[text shortened]... e "understanding"- of gaining some advantage regarding the "best environment" process.
the term just goes with the flow and the chips will always just fall out
to the lifeform best suited which does not mean the strongest always
either. I'm still trying to find a logical reason for the eye to be here.
I recall a computer model where they programmed a creature to
evolve and improve in the conditions they put it in and it did, but one
point they acknowedged they cheated, they had to put in eyes so that
it could deal with the changing conditions of light and dark too, until
that time light meant nothing to it.
So the suggestion about eyes is important to me, if it cannot at least
have a viable reason for being, than I think the whole theory needs
to be looked at again. I'm sure some parts are good still, even if we
have to reject others, but that would still be good if they need to be
kept and others need to be modified.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWait KJ!
Evolution does not have needs, there are no risks it as I understand
the term just goes with the flow and the chips will always just fall out
to the lifeform best suited which does not mean the strongest always
either. I'm still trying to find a logical reason for the eye to be here.
I recall a computer model where they programmed a creature to
evolve ...[text shortened]... , but that would still be good if they need to be
kept and others need to be modified.
Kelly
Evolution of course has no needs, but all the species had the need to survive and to expand in their environment. So some species entered this "risk process" and, the more mutated generations were able to survive and to expand, the most creatures with genes with this exact mutation started to subside the non mutated brothers;
The issue here is that the species through evolution they have more possibilities to expand in their environment. If this is understood we may move forward.
edit: "I'm still trying to find a logical reason for the eye to be here."
The eye is here because without this evolved organ the species with eyes they could not survive; but some species in some environments don't need an eye, therefore they don't have eyes -or their eyes are not as efficient as other species' eyes;
edit: "So the suggestion about eyes is important to me, if it cannot at least have a viable reason for being, than I think the whole theory needs to be looked at again."
The reason comes afterwards -in fact "reason" is the way of the human beings to be in touch with their world, to produce ideas and to evolve better and better.
But anyway the whole theory will fall immediately in case the scientists will bring up a find that is against it. The whole theory is constantly under full inspection from the first time that Lamarc and Darwin brought it up, but is still quite stable and acceptable.
Originally posted by black beetleWe are still talking about the eye are we not, tell me in the universe
Wait KJ!
Evolution of course has no needs, but all the species had the need to survive and to expand in their environment. So some species entered this "risk process" and, the more mutated generations were able to survive and to expand, the most creatures with genes with this exact mutation started to subside the non mutated brothers;
The issue here ...[text shortened]... more possibilities to expand in their environment. If this is understood we may move forward.
where all are blind, why would the eye appear? I keep asking the
same questions and the questions are why would eye appear? What
if you are correct, about a patch of light sensitive area on a life form,
how would the information gotten transferred so that it could be
either helpful or hurtful? If the information got transferred, exactly
why do you think it would be helpful? These should be simple
enough questions to answer I would think.
Kelly
Originally posted by black beetleSo evolution saw the need for an eye and designed it? Logic does
edit: "I'm still trying to find a logical reason for the eye to be here."
The eye is here because without this evolved organ the species with eyes they could not survive; but some species in some environments don't need an eye, therefore they don't have eyes -or their eyes are not as efficient as other species' eyes;
not follow that reasoning in my opinion, maybe someone has an
answer, if not that is a big question.
Kelly
Originally posted by black beetleI don't by it is stable, but it is defended with the passion to keep it
edit: "So the suggestion about eyes is important to me, if it cannot at least have a viable reason for being, than I think the whole theory needs to be looked at again."
The reason comes afterwards -in fact "reason" is the way of the human beings to be in touch with their world, to produce ideas and to evolve better and better.
But anyway the whole ...[text shortened]... e first time that Lamarc and Darwin brought it up, but is still quite stable and acceptable.
acceptable.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHi Kelly,
I don't by it is stable, but it is defended with the passion to keep it
acceptable.
Kelly
just jumping back into the threads after a break. Saw some of your posts on the eye and thought I'd wade in - although please forgive me for not reading through everything at this stage.
You're asking about the evolution of the eye.
Just a couple of points to make here. The eye is particularly useful to many terrestrial lifeforms because it utilises visible EM radiation which is quite abundant. Visible EM radiation carries information which can be useful to some organisms in their day to day lives.
Now there are other ways of getting information about the world - other types of EM radiation, sound, magnetic fields and so on. And of course many of these have been tried out by evolution in one way or another.
But it still begs your question which is why bother in the first place. We need eyes now only because we've always had them. But what about the first organism to develop any sort of light sensitivity? What would've been the need?
My answer is only a guess, but follows evolutionary adaptation in other areas. I would think that light sensitive cells - the first eyes if you like - would be like any other mutation. Something thrown up in the wash of evolutionary tryouts. For those creatures that first developed these cells they may well have been irrelevant and useless. A useless feature will be kept of course if it does no harm - think of the appendix for most people. But useless features can gradually develop to become useful features - our ear bones are modified versions of the gills from fish.
It could be that the light sensitive cells at some point became advantageous to the creatures that had them and so they dominated - in fact, this must be the case, since light sensitive cells now dominate in yours and my eyes and in many other creatures.
Originally posted by amannionI have a hard time with terms like "tried out" when speaking of
Hi Kelly,
just jumping back into the threads after a break. Saw some of your posts on the eye and thought I'd wade in - although please forgive me for not reading through everything at this stage.
You're asking about the evolution of the eye.
Just a couple of points to make here. The eye is particularly useful to many terrestrial lifeforms because it uti ...[text shortened]... , since light sensitive cells now dominate in yours and my eyes and in many other creatures.
evolution, it isn't like evolution looks at things to see if they work or
not and goes on the next thing. If an evolutionary path is taken and
it leads to a dead end it will get to a dead end, there isn't a do over.
The thing about life is once the process stops, that is it, it isn't a video
game with a reset button and that is the back drop for all process
changes. If the process change is species wide and it puts a species
in a position of dying out, than it dies out. This puts evolution in the
place where some portion of evolution must always get it right, the
process changes must always allow for all changes in environment and
so on. So points about the eye has to be very strait forward, I submit
that an input like 'light' or now 'radiation' could be confusing which
would hinder not help a life form since now it would be attempting to
make sense or make the new input into some useful data. I have not
yet seen anyone tell me how that would occur outside of very basic
statement of faith about "it would have given that life an advantage"
as if just saying that some how makes it so.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannion"Needs" also do not come into play with evolution, that is a design
Hi Kelly,
just jumping back into the threads after a break. Saw some of your posts on the eye and thought I'd wade in - although please forgive me for not reading through everything at this stage.
You're asking about the evolution of the eye.
Just a couple of points to make here. The eye is particularly useful to many terrestrial lifeforms because it uti ...[text shortened]... , since light sensitive cells now dominate in yours and my eyes and in many other creatures.
term. There isn't any "try", there isn't any "needs to", there isn't any
"try outs" it does seem to me when people speak about evolution they
do tend to use design terms when describing it, yet they will at the
same time argue strongly that design isn't part of the process. So the
change that causes the light would have had no need to occur, there
would not have been attempts to get it right, there would never be
try outs, because those are again design terms. I do not know if you
see why I'm still wondering why the eye could have happened?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou seem to ignore the fact that many features including eyes spring up independently, eyes came up in at least 4 independent life forms so the ending of a species does not end the concept of said useful feature. Here is one oddity just figured out: Cows as seen from powerful space born cameras show cows all over the world standing in lines, lining up. The thing they seem to be lining up to is the magnetic field of the earth. What possible use is that adaptation to a cow?
I have a hard time with terms like "tried out" when speaking of
evolution, it isn't like evolution looks at things to see if they work or
not and goes on the next thing. If an evolutionary path is taken and
it leads to a dead end it will get to a dead end, there isn't a do over.
The thing about life is once the process stops, that is it, it isn't a vide ve given that life an advantage"
as if just saying that some how makes it so.
Kelly
Maybe useful as a navigation aid but migration patterns of herd animals like Elk and such have been made over thousands of years and they follow the same path. They also know birds have a magnetic compass in their heads to help migration but how would that have come about? That seems a lot more subtle a thing than eyes, there is so much light from the sun people are more likely to go blind from too much light as from not enough which has already happened to Salamanders in deep caves, animals that used to have vision but now do not. But the magnetic sense, That seems a lot harder to figure out what the first adaptation was, what genetic mutation happened that allowed the sensing of magnetic fields. That is a lot more mysterious to me than the origins of eyes. A lot easier to figure out perhaps is the electro abilities of certain fish, like the very sensitive electrosensors of sharks, they locate prey by their electrical activity even in totally muddy waters.
Since neurons are partially electrical already, it doesn't take a huge leap to go from neurons to specialized cells able to sense and even generate electricity as in Eels. So the mystery there would be how and where did the first neurons come about. There are small jellyfish that have no eyes but sense not only light but the color of light, blue and green at least, green telling the jellyfish they are in deep water and therefore safer from predation and blue light meaning they are close to the surface and closer to predators and from damaging blue and UV radiation that can kill having nothing to do with predation. So when they detect blue they start moving as fast as they can till they no longer detect blue and become more lethargic. Light has the ability to break bonds and so at the molecular level in these simple animals the bare detection of light is not that big a leap and therefore the jump from simple detection to focused imaging through several techniques like the multiple lens assembly of insects, with the top of the ladder there being the dragonfly, the simpler insects like spiders and such may have hundreds of individual sensors that can at least discern shadows, the dragonfly has something like 50,000 separate lens/sensor assemblies tied to a simple brain that can track its prey very well and navigate around objects while it flies. The human eye only has about 200,000 sensors so the dragonfly isn't THAT far from human imaging ability. Eagles win that contest with over 1,000,000 rods and cones, 5 sensors for every one in the human eye, making it the king of eyes on earth. I don't see a big leap from molecular level sensors on those jellyfish to individual lenses on insects to rods and cones in vertabrates. I have a hard time seeing where magnetic senses come from.
Originally posted by sonhouseI would like you to tell me the ins and outs of how the eye came to
You seem to ignore the fact that many features including eyes spring up independently, eyes came up in at least 4 independent life forms so the ending of a species does not end the concept of said useful feature. Here is one oddity just figured out: Cows as seen from powerful space born cameras show cows all over the world standing in lines, lining up. The ...[text shortened]... to rods and cones in vertabrates. I have a hard time seeing where magnetic senses come from.
be. It should be easy since you can pin point not one but four
independent life forms that had eyes spring up from them. I was
a little concern the "light sensitive patch" was just a myth, some made
up story to spin how it could have occurred, you have four sources,
let’s name them and tell me how it occurred.
You bringing up cows lining up and other odd abilities does not add to
your explanation but complicates it even more. It basically goes to
show you that a life form if it becomes susceptible to an influence such
as magnetism that it can cause that life to point in a specific direction,
so if something became light sensitive, again why would that
automatically be assumed to be a good thing? It could become
fixated upon the light and die for lack of food or some other
necessary thing for life.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseDoes that explain why beef is a good source of iron?
You seem to ignore the fact that many features including eyes spring up independently, eyes came up in at least 4 independent life forms so the ending of a species does not end the concept of said useful feature. Here is one oddity just figured out: Cows as seen from powerful space born cameras show cows all over the world standing in lines, lining up. The ...[text shortened]... to rods and cones in vertabrates. I have a hard time seeing where magnetic senses come from.