Lets build eyes

Originally posted by KellyJay
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!

First of all, I need to say that I often find it very difficult to understand what you are saying. I often have to guess at what you mean as it is not clear to me what your exact points are.

Are we at this point at least agreed that communication systems are common throughout life?
Am I also correct that you are not saying that communications systems would not have evolved without eyes, but you are rather saying that when an eye evolves it must simultaneously have a communication system specific to it?

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!
I don't need to prove it. I don't know how sight started. I suspect it started in a number of different instances in slightly different ways each time. What we are discussing here is not exactly how it started, but whether it is reasonable possible that it did. Your claim is that it could not, my claim is that it is possible.

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
And I have given examples where not all those systems are in place and the system still works.

Lets break it down.
This is my claim - it is possible that:
a) an organism had light sensitive cells.
b) at some stage it started using the information generated by those light sensitive cells in order to react in some way.
c) over time, the light sensitive cells got more and more specialized and started to be used for true sight.
Which step are you disputing? Are we discussing human eyes, or are you saying that even the single celled eyes in the worm I linked to previously could not have evolved due to some logical constraint.

Originally posted by KellyJay
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, fi ...[text shortened]... in place things that would have had to get put together correctly in
order to work.
Kelly

If you're really interested in learning about the origins of sight, i recommend a book for you.

Life Ascending - The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane.

He is a biochemist and goes into detail about how sight originated.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If you're really interested in learning about the origins of sight, i recommend a book for you.

Life Ascending - The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane.

He is a biochemist and goes into detail about how sight originated.

Thank you
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

Don’t confuse an insult with constructive criticism; we want to help you.

You often say things in a way that I and other people on these forums find extraordinary difficult to interpret –failing to put full stops between sentences and failing to split-up a whole paragraph into two or more more comprehendible sentences and assuming prior knowledge by what you mean and saying things in a way that can be interpreted in more than one way being just some of the reasons for that.
If you want to be understood, you may consider doing something about that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Don’t confuse an insult with constructive criticism; we want to help you.

You often say things in a way that I and other people on these forums find extraordinary difficult to interpret –failing to put full stops between sentences and failing to split-up a whole paragraph into two or more more comprehendible sentences and assuming prior knowledge ...[text shortened]... e reasons for that.
If you want to be understood, you may consider doing something about that.

I'm telling you, I don't like your tone and will not put up with it, you can continue
with your constructive criticism so called, and you will can have a conversation
with some one else. Life is to short, if you cannot have a normal conversation
with me without the personal insults we will not have any at all, its completely up
to you! You want to be suzie english and spell checker that is fair, but insults, no,
there is no reason why I should have to put up with that, and I won't.
Kelly

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-

At least we have in the Bible a predicted movement of history which arrives at what you suggest - a much better world.

The question is, if God should do so today, where would you be ?

Ie. If God should institutes perfect Justice this evening, how do you know that you would enjoy a comfortable outcome ?

If the more perfect world should be immediately instituted how do you know that would not mean a hellish outcome for you ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Only interested in the eye at the moment.
Kelly

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

Sounds to me like you're interested in the eye AND the nervous system now.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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

Sounds to me like you're interested in the eye AND the nervous system now.

If you can bring up a topic that goes to evolution of the eye fine by me it is all on
the table. I'm interested in the evolution of the eye how do we get to the very first
step of this visual system we now enjoy? What brought this wondrous ability into
living systems if there was ever a time life didn’t have eye sight.

So having some piece of any living being becoming light sensitive isn't enough as
far as I'm concern for the reasons I have stated, the sensitivity must translate this
information into something useful, or it is meaningless. Having a reaction to light
due to some new found sensitivity is also a very vague descriptive statement as
well, we can have several different types of reactions to any stimulus such as an
attraction, repulsion, vibration, heat, some catalyst to a chemical reaction and so on.
None of those actually has anything ‘seeing’ or understanding what is affecting it is
light either! So getting something light sensitive isn’t useful unless that translates
into some useful information of sorts.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you can bring up a topic that goes to evolution of the eye fine by me it is all on
the table. I'm interested in the evolution of the eye how do we get to the very first
step of this visual system we now enjoy? What brought this wondrous ability into
living systems if there was ever a time life didn’t have eye sight.

So having some piece of any livi ...[text shortened]... sensitive isn’t useful unless that translates
into some useful information of sorts.
Kelly

Now this is getting into building eyes, nerves and a brain. Seriously, let's just go all the way back...you can keep saying "well what came before THAT?" and eventually we end up at "the BEGINNING" whatever that is.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Now this is getting into building eyes, nerves and a brain. Seriously, let's just go all the way back...you can keep saying "well what came before THAT?" and eventually we end up at "the BEGINNING" whatever that is.

Yea, and I was attempting to start at the beginning, it was YOU that said,

"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. "

If you want to acknowledge that does not address the beginning fine by me,
tell me where we should start! Since I believe I have pointed out why that is
a very poor starting block it does nothing towards adding advantage to any life
form.


Kelly

YouTube

http://www.pasadenaeye.com/faq/faq15/faq15_text.html

It's amazing what the human eye is required to do. Flawed or Not. How it has to function and how the brain interprets this info/data.


Manny

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, and I was attempting to start at the beginning, it was YOU that said,

"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. "

If you want to acknowledge that does not address the be ...[text shortened]... ry poor starting block it does nothing towards adding advantage to any life
form.


Kelly

“…If you want to acknowledge that does not address the beginning..”

Why couldn’t: "Stick a molecule that absorbs light in cells…” have been the beginning of the process of evolution of the eye?
How else could it have begun? -I mean, a light-absorbing molecule would seem like an obviously essential starting point –right?
Exactly, in your mind, what is “required” to come before that?

“…tell me where we should start! Since I believe I have pointed out why that is
a very poor starting block it does nothing towards adding ADVANTAGE to any life
form….” ( my emphasis )

Are you saying that a molecule that absorbs light in cells couldn’t be advantageous?
There are numerous living examples of the contrary of this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you can bring up a topic that goes to evolution of the eye fine by me it is all on
the table. I'm interested in the evolution of the eye how do we get to the very first
step of this visual system we now enjoy? What brought this wondrous ability into
living systems if there was ever a time life didn’t have eye sight.

So having some piece of any livi ...[text shortened]... sensitive isn’t useful unless that translates
into some useful information of sorts.
Kelly

"None of those actually has anything ‘seeing’ or understanding what is affecting it is light either! So getting something light sensitive isn’t useful unless that translates into some useful information of sorts."

But we learn to interpret the input from our eyes! babies cannot 'see' as we do and I remember a TV story about a man blind from birth who had his eyes fixed but was then terified by the 'sensory overload'. He had to learn to use those signals to see as we do!

Someone has already mentioned the people who learn to 'see' by echo location. Now check out this technology to help the blind 'see' with theor tongues!

Its the brain that is the wonder with 'seeing' as much or more so than the eyes.



YouTube

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…If you want to acknowledge that does not address the beginning..”

Why couldn’t: "Stick a molecule that absorbs light in cells…” have been the beginning of the process of evolution of the eye?
How else could it have begun? -I mean, a light-absorbing molecule would seem like an obviously essential starting point –right?
Exactly, in your min ...[text shortened]... in cells couldn’t be advantageous?
There are numerous living examples of the contrary of this.

I've given a few reasons why not already.
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]"None of those actually has anything ‘seeing’ or understanding what is affecting it is light either! So getting something light sensitive isn’t useful unless that translates into some useful information of sorts."

But we learn to interpret the input from our eyes! babies cannot 'see' as we do and I remember a TV story about a man blind fr ...[text shortened]... as much or more so than the eyes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0[/b]

Babies have fully developed eyes, everything is connected properly, all the
systems are in place working together.

We are not talking about that! What we are talking about is something completely
different! The movie you are referring too I believe is called, "At first sight" and
he was not born blind, he became blind early in life and got his eyes fixed, but
it lasted only a few weeks. Very good movie and he had knowledge about
seeing before hand, he knew what was coming, he had people walking him
through the whole experience. Nothing about this acquiring a light sensitive spot
has any of that outside support. I'm still stressing that simply being sensitive
is not seeing, it can cause several different types of reactions none of which have
to be good.

What is sort of being ‘assumed’ when people say a light sensitive spot just
occurred is that with it comes the ability to send and receive information to make
that new spot an advantage. This supposedly automatically happens the same time
the spot arrives that communication just magically works itself out. They must believe
a signal occurs it gets properly interpreted and advantage life form, ta da we have the
beginning of the eye, never bothering to look at the details, they have what they want
so that is enough.
Kelly