Re: Big Eye Ball
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:11:41 -0700
mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:03 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:07 pm, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:> Evolutionists are keen on tellilng us that everything evolved from a
lower sort of animal.
No evolutionist would tell you that oak trees, or slime molds, or
amoebas, evolved from any sort of animal; their last common ancestor
with animals was a single-celled eukaryote that was not, itself, an
animal. And evolutionists generally try to avoid using the terms
"lower" and "higher," which have no particular meaning in evolutionary
theory.
Everything refers to every animal, not plants. You know that. Wisen up
and quit wasting your energy.
Well, we assumed that you were overlooking many things. This is one
way of telling you. You agree then, that evolutionists do not claim
that oak trees came from "lower" animals? That most animals today are
single celled? Do you understand that evolutionary scientists do not
normally use "lower and "higher"?
Some would tell you species. But apparently
evolutionists do not take the time to figure out what a species is,
what a family is and what the difference is between the two.
The last common ancestor of, say, humans and rhesus macaques (a type
of monkey) would be a population of monkeys.
And you know this for certain? All evolutionists agree with this
assertion?
Yes. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
This population belonged
to a particular species of monkey, but quite probably did not comprise
the entire species to which it belonged. "Species" is a somewhat
fuzzy term,
I thought evolutionists had definitions of species all wrapped up. If
they don't hypocrisy is in order.
Why hypocrisy? Scientists study reality, and reality often has fuzzy
borders. Why would a clear and concise and all-inclusive definition be
necessary, why would you think it possible, and WTF would you see it
as a moral issue?
After all, evolutionists demand,
and command obedience when they demand and command that creationists
define "kind."
Yes. You claim that species can evolve, but not a "kind". So what's a
kind, and where is the barrier - we would love to see evidence for
one, and a proposed mechanism.
And of course creationists have done so but
evolutionists pretend they didn't see the answer. But here, the feeble
voice "species is a fuuuzzzzy term."
Could you provide a link where this is defined?
because no single definition fits all the observed
biological realities of populations (e.g. how does the biological
species concept apply to populations that reproduce asexually?), but
species are a real phenomenon. "Families," on the other hand, are
pretty arbitrary groupings/
When evolutionists put apes in with man, as a family, then arbitrary
is right. In reality they aren't in the same family.
Correct. Humans *are apes.
; there is no rule saying how similar two
species have to be in order to be put in the same Linnaean family, or
how different they must be before that is no longer an option. A
"family" contains one or more "genera" (another arbitrary rank), which
contains one or more species.
Evolutionists have told us and has labelled as such man and monkey in
the same family. But the truth be told is that this is a false
statement. But that won't stop any evolutionist from putting forth the
statement. But if you look in any old book on mammals you will find
out that there are many specimens of chipmunks. All these chipmunks
have sleight variations and all of them can interbreed. The same
can't be said about man and monkeys. But like I said that's not
going to stop an evolutionist from doing what he wants to do.
"Monkeys" are conventionally divided into three families, two families
of New World monkeys and one of Old World monkeys. The Old World
monkeys are more closely related to apes (including us) than they are
to New World monkeys. All the monkeys, together with apes and humans,
are grouped in the Anthropoidea, which is, I think, a suborder (bigger
than a family, in any case). Humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and
orangutans are placed in the same family, Hominidae.
Some evolutionists label man and apes in the same family.
Men *are apes.
"Chipmunks" are a genus, _Tamias_, within the family Sciuridae
(squirrels), within the order Rodentia. So "chipmunks" would be a
category on the level of "hominines" rather than "hominids," although,
as noted, there's no reason why a "family" within the Primates would
have the same degree of similarity and difference (genetic or
morphological) as a "family" within the rodents. But we might expect
that chipmunk species seemed, to the taxonomists who did the
classifying, about as much like one another as modern humans are to,
say, _Homo erectus_.
You're wasting too much space describing the order of chipmunks.
Goodness! We wouldn't want to examine your assertion in detail, now,
would we? We all know that creationists do much better with vague
generalities, conflation of terms, red herrings, category errors, and
such. Looking at the claims in detail, checking the facts, clarifying
the meaning of a sentence, are all anathema to you, aren't they?
This is a poor excuse for not addressing the question. Chipmunks
interbreed with each other and men and monkeys dont'.
Cites? Sexually reproducing species are separate species because they
do not ordinarily interbreed.
Period. It's
that simple. Describing in long winded fashion the exact details of
what makes a chipmunk doesn't add much to the fact that chipmunks
interbreed and man and monkeys don't.
But monkeys and elephants do:
http://www.freakingnews.com/Monkey-elephant-Pictures-11902.asp
In other words the word species
doesn't necessarily add up to much except for describing sleight
differences. But all you need is two chipmunks to make the whole lot
of every species of chipmunks that exists.
Good points, except they're all wrong.
I have no idea how genetically similar different chipmunk species are
to one another. But humans and chimpanzees are about as similar,
genetically, as horses and zebras, although horses and zebras are
assigned to the same genus and humans and chimps are usually assigned
to different genera.
Yes, and humans and chimps do not mix.
Can you affirm this from personal experience? This is why we are
considered separate species.
We are often told that eyes just evolved. But let's take a look at the
eye ball. It's got a lens for starters. In the human there are
muscles that link to the lens. The muscles contract the lens to allow
it to focus properly.
All these features are common to all primates, of course, and indeed
(aside from differences in the number and type of the cones, which
allow us to see in color) to all mammals.
When the first eye ball came into existence did the other eyeball form
at the same time?
Tetrapods are bilaterally symmetrical. Mutations typically manifest on
both sides of the body.
In a camera the lens is either manipulated
manually by a human who either turns the lens in a screw like fashion
or pulls the lens in or out. In some cameras there are built in
mechanisms that cause focusing. These are auto focus mechanisms that
are built on software. This software uses mathematics for it's
programming. The software was written by humans who developed it with
trial and error, after serious study of the programming language, a
language that was created by a human being or beings. Other human
beings developed the hard ware, which would be the mechanism that
allows for memory storage and also for read and write mechanisms that
allow code to be stored on chips or some other medium. Normally, to
develop a camera a study was made of lens and how they work. How they
transmit light and for study of abberations and correction of these
abberations. After the proper lens are made and the correct barrels
are developed (appropriate to focusing powers) they are put together.
In auto focus lens motors are built into the mechanism and proper
software made to operate the lens. So in light of this, how did the
eye come to be?
Good question.
And one that has been answered, in greater or lesser detail, for the
last century and a half.
With these cover words that allows the evolutionist to disperse with
his obligation. And of course we are expected to believe that he is
telling the exact truth.
Google "Evolution of the eye", first page of hits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp
There are a great variety of eyes, and a
number of known functional intermediates (as opposed to evolutionary
intermediates, but the evolutionary intermediates could have
functioned the same way)
That's a mouth-ful. you could just cut to the chase. Saying that
there is "a great variety eyes" is condescending to everyone because
we already know that.
And yet you can't induce the obvious - they are examples similar to
the various stages of the evolution of the eye.
Stating "and a great number of known
functional intermediates" presumes the truth thereof. But what are
these known "intermediates". Every eyeball known to man is fully
functional. even trillobites had fully functional eyeballs.
Yes. Even light-sensitive patches of skin are functional. Do you see
that this answers your own question?
between light-sensitive nerve ending on the
skin and the box-camera eye we see in humans. The lancelet has only a
cone-shaped dent with a retina, no lens, no eyeball, nothing but a
light-sensitive patch in a dent.
Then the dent with no retina or eyeball is quite sufficient for it's
needs. So then are you claiming that the lancelet later developed a
retina?
Umm... no. If it later developed a retina, then it would *have a
retina, wouldn't it?
So maybe sometime in the past there was a light sensitive
patch. This happened because the DNA came to be because the animal
needed it coincidentally.
No, we have explained this numerous times. Mutations are random
regarding the benefit to the species in question. I suppose we will
keep explaining it, also.
It was an accident that fit the cause.
How about: it was a random mutation which gave the organism a
reproductive advantage, therefore the mutation spread rapidly thru
the species?
And
later an eyeball came to be because the organism was changing and
another accident came to be that fit the cause.
The mutation fit the cause of the mutation? No, a mutation happened
because of one of several copying errors that we know of, or perhaps
one of several that we do not yet know about. Because it turned out to
be advantageous, it spread throughout the genepool.
So where are the
mistakes? The sideways eye ball hole instead of the direct ones?
They died! I am very nearsighted. If this were 10,000 years ago - and
perhaps 300 years ago - my kids would never have been born. All
mutations are mistakes. Sometimes mistakes are beneficial. There was
no "eyeball mutation", BTW - there were thousands, and perhaps
millions.
Where are the erratic pattern cones in the mammal kingdom?
The planarian doesn't even have the
dent, just the light-sensitive spots.
It would be interesting to see light-sensitive spots in the
intestine. Because that would constitute an accident. But as it were
you have light-sensitive spots where they are needed.
Light-sensitive spots in the intestine would be neutral at best. There
is no reason for it to be selected.
And it came
there by accident coinciding with need.
No, the beneficial differences were selected for because the organisms
with those differences were more likely to reproduce.
You really don't have a clue what the process of evolution is, do you?
Worse, you don't have a clue that you don't have a clue.
The chambered nautilus has an
eyeball,
Describe this nautilus in more detail and explain why it has no
lens?
It's parents didn't have lenses. No mollusk does.
but no lens. And so forth and on. There is a continuous
series of possible intermediates,
These are fully operable animals completely within their environs.
But supposing a human had only light spots, or a tiger or a salmon.
Or how about if humans had light spots inside his nostril but no eyes
whatsoever. I guess that would help him avoid the sharp piece of
obsidian on the ground. Maybe he could have an eyeball with no lens.
In that way if it rains he could collect water for times of drought,
and just tilt his head foreward and let the water flow onto his
tongue.
John, the kindest thing I can say is that you are extraordinarily
clueless. Anyone who doesn't tell you is co-enabling idiocy.
each of which will provide an
increase in visual ability over the predecessors.
So if the light spot was sufficient, then why not retain it?
A difference might be an even better lightspot.
Some how the proper material (translucent material) came into being.
The crystallin in human lenses appears to be homologous to a digestive
enzyme. There are a number of transparent proteins in nature.
Then there should have evolved lens in the digestive track. Then the
human could have purchased a special spotting scope that he pushed
into his throat and down into his stomach. He can catch the latest
episode of Days of our Lives that way.
It wouldn't be advantageous.
This was not done, according to evolutionists, through intelligence
oversight. That is, no God came around to organize the flesh parts of
the eyeball to develop. Why did certain chemicals focus their
direction to creating the lens? The lens is flexible enough to be
manipulated for proper focusing.
The flexibility is a side effect of the materials available for making
the lens (proteins and aqueous solutions).
Apparently somehow these materials got diverted from the digestive
tract. Made it's way up some nerves or something and got organized
into a circle shape. It happens all the time.
Note that the original
lens wouldn't need to have variable thickness, although it would be
suitable to evolve this trait as mutations led to muscle attachments
to the lens.
Was it a concerted mutation effect where just enough mutations made
the perfect circle of the lens? Why couldn't the lens be square? Or
some other inefficient shape to show that no creator is in charge.
Ummm... There's nobody there to care if you think a creator is in
charge. Or, if there is a creator, she is using these processes to
create life's diversity.
Maybe a tongue hanging out the ears for no apparent reason than to say
nature did it haphazardly?
Why do you think this would be advantageous? I'm frankly surprised
*you're still alive, and I assume your body is more or less normal.
One can make a simple, functional camera whose lens is
fixed in place and unable to change shape or position.
Aside from the fact that there is no simple eyeball in the trillobite.
Quite complex for that crab. But even a simpel fucntional camera has
a film backing, a hole, and proper space inbetween the two. But a
lens is perfectly round, and also attached with some muscles. So
sometime in the past the DNA programmed a little at a time. First the
lens was particially there. Say half a lens. Then the DNA put a small
muscle. Then another on the other side. Then they got stronger and was
able to pull the lens. Then you figure, well, OK by happenstance it
just worked out that lightsensitive spots formed at the first, then a
retina came up to it. But get this, it connected by nerves to the
brain in just the right place where that could be processes. We're
happy now. And then by accident the hole decided to have a lens. Later
it had muscles. Interesting how this all works out together.
It hurts my brain to picture it as you described it. But yes, a small
change at a time. I'm glad you dropped the idea of a mutation that
gave some organism's offspring a full-blown eye from scratch. Only the
changes which were beneficial or neutral spread thru the genepool.
For that
matter, a lot of humans make do with eyeglasses that, likewise, don't
change shape to accomodate different uses. Remember: a modification
needs only to be useful, not perfect, to be favored by natural
selection.
Actually wearing glasses simply goes to many factors such as reading
too much, inadequate diet, lack of sleep etc. Sometimes an eye
doctor will ask his patient if he studies and watches TV at the same
time. This is because the patient has good eyesight.
And often they will not, because they know that truly bad eyes are not
just reading too close as a kid. Much of modern obesity is from diet
and lack of exercise, but that doesn't mean that most of many
differences aren't genetic.
The lens is round and certainly
produces clear and correct visual information. In fact, humans use
their eyes to correct lens distortion in the cameras that they make.
So some how the DNA had coding that produced the proper tissue that
became the lens.
The short answer is that mutations that led to "improper" (opaque, or
grossly nonspherical, etc.) tissue growing over the aperture of the
eye led to organisms that were unfit and did not pass on their genes.
So there were a lot of mistakes in the process. But nature didn't give
up. So by happenstance the DNA mutations (mutations are disruptions
of information that is already there) turned one thing into another it
seems. What was mutated in the first place_
How could nature give up?
There were probably far more such mutations than mutations that led to
better lenses, but these mutants simply joined the majority of the
population in each generation that would not live to pass on their
genes. Only the rare mutants whose mutations led to, e.g. a
spheroidal blob of transparent protein being placed at the aperture of
the eye would survive and pass on the genes for this feature.
And the lens had the correct information from the
DNA to make it round and sit at the front of the eyeball. Why not
sideways to indicate that nature was working blindly? Why not
imperfect vision or particial vision or blurred vision? Why should
there be any focusing power anyway?
Without glasses, *I* have imperfect, blurred vision. Lots of people
get by with imperfect, blurred vision.
I have blurred vision but I wasn't born that way.
I have, and I was.
Again, the chambered nautilus
and the lancelet get by with even worse vision, but it's better than
being blind.
The lancelet doesn't have worse vision. They have vision that is
sufficient to them.
Even I see better than them. A rabbit may be as strong as a rabbit
needs to be, but that doesn't mean you aren't stronger than a rabbit.
Focussing power isn't an "all or nothing" phenomenon,
but can be built up by degrees, starting out useful but inessential,
and gradually becoming necessary as everyone else gets it.
So you are saying that muscles grew to the lens and attached in
degrees?
No, he's saying that effective focusing of a lens evolved by degrees.
It almost certainly didn't
happen as you imagine it. *Nothing happened like you imagined it. Nor
has anyone's assertions ever been what you imagined they said.
Somehow in the back of this eye orb came to be an optic nerve. In a
digital camera we see millions of sensors there. These sensors receive
light that was properly focused onto them. In a human eye there are
millions of tiny cones that recieve light information. The question
is, how did the DNA have the proper sequence to channel proteins to be
created that made millions of tiny cones? Why not just one? Or
none? Or perhaps an irregular pattern? How did the DNA have proper
programming coincidentally, timed with programming for a lens? I
mean this: In order for the cones to receive light, there must be (1)
a hole in the orb and (2) a lens to focus the light in the hole (3)
muscles that pull the lens in order to focus the light.
The optic nerve is presumably older than the eye.
So you are saying that the light patch and the optic nerve and the
brain were all produced at the same time or that for a while the optic
nerve had no function until the light patch came around?
They are one and the same. The eye is correctly thought of as an
extension of the brain. Most sensory organs were originally simple
nerves that developed special sensitivity to one aspect of the
environment. Touch first, and taste/smell. Think of the simplest worm
you can imagine. Nerves reaching to the skin were sensitive to
chemicals and pressure. All the sense organs derived from those.
Kermit
JM
.
- References:
- Big Eye Ball
- From: mccoy
- Re: Big Eye Ball
- From: mccoy
- Big Eye Ball
- Prev by Date: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Darwin's Black Box
- Previous by thread: Re: Big Eye Ball
- Next by thread: Re: Big Eye Ball
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
