Lets build eyes

Originally posted by jaywill
Former top philosophical atheist [b]Anthony Flew follows the evidence to eventually leave atheism in favor of deistic or (non-revelatory) theistic Intelligent Design:

" I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the ...[text shortened]... Read the whole interview:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

There is one nut born every minute.

Originally posted by jaywill
A flawed design is still a design.

God works with finger-paints? I'd think if God is so powerful as many claim he could step it up a bit and make something better for his Earth's favorite creature.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
God works with finger-paints? I'd think if God is so powerful as many claim he could step it up a bit and make something better for his Earth's favorite creature.

P-

Like my pc. Its totally run by God-I have no doubt. Sometimes it just crashes but if you've "been good" then it works😀

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Like my pc. Its totally run by God-I have no doubt. Sometimes it just crashes but if you've "been good" then it works😀

God makes Bill Gates rich, the Devil makes your PC crash.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Stick a molecule that absorbs light in cells on the surface of tissue. That will do for starters. A simple light sensor.

Then, poke the surface so it's pitted instead of flat. Now we have a directional light sensor.

Etc.

Kellyjay's method won't work at all until the final step. The above method works at every step of construction.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-050-D5AB1101.jpg

If we were to get a light sensor, what good would it do if there wasn't any way
for the information to be passed back and forth so that it was meaningful? You
should at least have a clue that simply putting in a new video card into a slot
on your mother board does not mean your card will just work with all the other
parts of the computer! Drivers have to be loaded; the monitor has to handle it,
and so on. Same thing goes for a light sensor molecule, you get one so what?

Getting one and then having an upgrade by getting it pitted just means you
have more things to work out to understand directional light sensors, everything
new has to be supported by the life form so it doesn't drain resources and not
weaken current systems within the life form.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If we were to get a light sensor, what good would it do if there wasn't any way
for the information to be passed back and forth so that it was meaningful?

All life forms whether they have eyes or not have some sort of internal communication system. In some animals, it is partly in the form of a central nervous system, but there are many other systems that do the same - even in humans.

Also, a light sensitive cell could provide functions other than what we call 'sight'.
For example, all plants have light sensitive cells without the need for a nervous system. They not only use them to produce food, but also to guide their growth.

There are various types of light sensitive cells in animals that do not provide sight. For example, my skin gets darker when exposed to light over time.

Here is an example of a very basic eye with apparently no nervous system involved:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/11/20/marine-worms-light-sensitive-cells-are-the-earliest-vision-system/

Originally posted by twhitehead
All life forms whether they have eyes or not have some sort of internal communication system. In some animals, it is partly in the form of a central nervous system, but there are many other systems that do the same - even in humans.

Also, a light sensitive cell could provide functions other than what we call 'sight'.
For example, all plants have light ...[text shortened]... zine.com/80beats/2008/11/20/marine-worms-light-sensitive-cells-are-the-earliest-vision-system/

You are jumping the gun than, if you want to say they are using an internal
communication system we need to talk about how it was added to this system
and speak about this system since you are using it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are jumping the gun than, if you want to say they are using an internal
communication system we need to talk about how it was added to this system
and speak about this system since you are using it.
Kelly

It was “added to this system” as you put it when the first animal nervous system evolved.
What is stopping evolution creating a nervous system in an animal?
This would be done by a combination of mutations and natural selection just like the evolution of ANY other inherited attribute of a living thing.
For this reason, there is no special “problem” in science explaining the evolution of a nervous system –at least no more of a “problem” than, say, the evolution of a stomach.
What “problem” are you referring to? We don’t see it!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are jumping the gun than, if you want to say they are using an internal
communication system we need to talk about how it was added to this system
and speak about this system since you are using it.
Kelly

Might as well go back to the beginning then. Let's build God. Or, perhaps we can build the Big Bang without God.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Might as well go back to the beginning then. Let's build God. Or, perhaps we can build the Big Bang without God.

Only interested in the eye at the moment.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
It was “added to this system” as you put it when the first animal nervous system evolved.
What is stopping evolution creating a nervous system in an animal?
This would be done by a combination of mutations and natural selection just like the evolution of ANY other inherited attribute of a living thing.
For this reason, there is no special “problem ...[text shortened]... m” than, say, the evolution of a stomach.
What “problem” are you referring to? We don’t see it!

You are assuming the system evolved, just saying so does not mean it did.
For the sake of argument, it does not matter, with a system there fully developed
can we now introduce into it a signal that can be understood on any level
causing an advantage to the life form that through a fluke in DNA mutations has
some part on the life form receiving light signals? Are we saying an "Animal" got
eyes for the first time, or that something so fully developed that we would call it
an "animal" was the creature in question that this could have begun in? Seems
to me the more "advanced" a life form is the harder it would be to introduce
something so new that it could be useful. Would this creature be worm like, an
insect, plant, just a few cells what?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are assuming the system evolved, just saying so does not mean it did.
For the sake of argument, it does not matter, with a system there fully developed
can we now introduce into it a signal that can be understood on any level
causing an advantage to the life form that through a fluke in DNA mutations has
some part on the life form receiving light si useful. Would this creature be worm like, an
insect, plant, just a few cells what?
Kelly

“…For the sake of argument, it does not matter, with a system there fully developed
can we now introduce into it a signal that can be understood on any level
causing an advantage to the life form that through a fluke in DNA mutations has
some part on the life form receiving light signals?...”

I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are asking here –complete gobbledegook. What are you on?

“…Seems
to me the more "advanced" a life form is the harder it would be to introduce
something so new that it could be useful…”

why? How would you observe this fact?

“…Would this creature be worm like, an
insect, plant, just a few cells what?...”

the first creature that developed the first true but rudimentary “eye” that is our direct ancestor may have been singled-celled or may have consisted of just a few cells or it may have even already evolved into a worm-like creature –we may never know. So what relevance would it make which is the case?
Let’s suppose that, just for the sake of argument, a single-celled creature was the first to develop an “eye” because the whole cell became a photoreceptor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor

so?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are jumping the gun than, if you want to say they are using an internal
communication system we need to talk about how it was added to this system
and speak about this system since you are using it.
Kelly

No, I don't think I am 'jumping the gun'.
You are yet to present a clear argument in this thread, and I am fairly sure that you have not at any point questioned the possibility that communication systems could evolve in life. You did I believe claim that certain things were required for an eye to evolve.
I believe I have established or can establish the following points, if you dispute any of them, please say so:
1. All living things have communications systems. This includes all multicellular life and even single cellar life. These communication systems come in many forms including but hardly exclusive to the central nervous system.
2. Light sensitive cells are fairly common in life and do not require a central nervous system to operate. Even when used as eyes, they do not require a central nervous system to operate.
3. Central nervous systems can exist without eyes ie they do not require eyes to operate.
4. Based on the above, a claim that light sensitive cells must evolve simultaneously with a nervous system or other communications system is invalid.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…For the sake of argument, it does not matter, with a system there fully developed
can we now introduce into it a signal that can be understood on any level
causing an advantage to the life form that through a fluke in DNA mutations has
some part on the life form receiving light signals?...”

I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are aski ...[text shortened]... the whole cell became a photoreceptor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor

so?

I tell you what when you can have an exchange without insults I'll continue
talking to you, until that time, we done. You don't have to agree with me, but the
insulting manner you address me should stop, I do not treat you that way.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I don't think I am 'jumping the gun'.
You are yet to present a clear argument in this thread, and I am fairly sure that you have not at any point questioned the possibility that communication systems could evolve in life. You did I believe claim that certain things were required for an eye to evolve.
I believe I have established or can establish the ...[text shortened]... s must evolve simultaneously with a nervous system or other communications system is invalid.

I've told you, you do not get to just add a new feature without that feature having
all the support it needs! Saying “communication systems could evolve" does not
add to conversation it simple is a statement of faith or yours! You wanted to walk
through the evolution of the eye in a thread just for that, we have just started
talking about the issues, first one on my list is communication getting a feature
that is affected by light does not mean the transfer of information is anyway
useful! Altering the cell so that it is able to put direction of light into the mix
also just adds more information that has to be interpretation into something useful
and that has not been addressed either.

All living systems have communication systems is very useless! Think about what
you are saying here, all of our communication systems have a language of sorts,
something that is used be it 1 and 0 or words, something that is understood if
you talking about computers, people, cell phones, something is being passed back
and forth. What you are saying as if it is no big deal is that we can take a
computer add hand scanner to it, and pow it should work without drivers and be
useful! You are avoiding this, how would any living creature who up to that point
in time didn't know light was there, all of a sudden find this signal going off
inside of it grasp meaning, unless it was connected to its system in such a way
where it could? For the commputer hook up, that would require the proper port,
drivers, energy and so on.

You saying that some of the life today that has light sensitive cells is example
of how it started, I'd have to say prove it! As far as i'm concern those are just
other examples of what you have to show me! Seeing the eyes of a fly and a
person just means you have two different systems with different eyes, same is
true for your simplier living systems and their light sensitive cells, just start
talking about how all of their parts could have started working together to make
light useful. There are a variety of eyes and light sensitive cells, but those are
systems in place things that would have had to get put together correctly in
order to work.
Kelly