blike Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 From what I understand, evolution is gradual, taking many many many generations to take place. So how did something like the eye evolve? In early stages of the eyes development, it would be unusable. Many things have to take place for the eye to function properly, and since evolution doesn't just pop out new features overnight, many hundreds of generations of animals would find the primitive parts for the eye a waste of energy. Last night I was reading in my anthropology book about how this generation of human's wisdom teeth aren't as developed as some of the previous generations. It gave the explanation that since we aren't using them, there is no longer a need for them. The eye is a very complex organ, so its not like one random mutation would produce a functioning eye. So why wasn't the eye eliminated in its early, unusable stages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 I'd have to say it started with basic photoreceptors, where having a more sensitive one is an advantage, since the eye is nothing more than a whole lot of specialized photoreceptors, it could easily have evolved from these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Hmm... to comment on Blike's wisdom teeth comment... I am not born with them... Fear me for I am an advanced species... or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Very simple answer to a very complex question; If the eye was eliminated during evolution....we wouldn't be able to see, DUH! That's why it remains. DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 13, 2002 Author Share Posted July 13, 2002 Thank heaven for kenel's genious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kurieuo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Blike, Here's a site that recently went online that might appeal to your liking - Eye Design Book - Kurieuo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 The great thing is that there are (I think) 3 different types of eyes in different animals today. They were evolved separately and do not seem to have a "common ancestor." This is a counterpoint to that of creationists who say that there is no way for an eye to evolve. I think this was mentioned in a recent issue of Discover or Scientific American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 15, 2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2002 Well, I believe their only common ancestor didn't have eyes Perhaps it was coded into the genes, but not expressed for some reason? anyhow, the creationists will tell you how unlikely that is. Thanks for the link Kurieuo!! Just to inform you, I believe the God of the hebrew bible used evolution to create the earth. So in a sense, I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kurieuo Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 Just to inform you, I believe the God of the hebrew bible used evolution to create the earth. So in a sense, I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution.I don't believe in biological evolution in the sense that life somehow evolved from chemical origins or that heritable changes could lead to such diverse ranges of life. Seeing as no mechanism of evolution has been found or settled on (Evolution is a Fact and Theory ), I feel evolution can only be seen as a fact to those who conform to a purely natural worldview. Hence, what they see has to be explained naturally - so evolution has to be fact. However if the mechanism for evolution isn't known, then it I think it to be far from fact. Only the data we possess can remain the facts, of which a lot are forced to fit with different theories of evolution. I myself am a progressive creationist, believing God created life over several long periods of time. I believe this idea is also supported by the sudden bursts of life (for example the Cambrian explosion) we see in the geological record. All the best, - Kurieuo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 it's not that hard: you start with photoreceptive cells (not so hard to imagine since even amoeba can display photokinesis) this would give the creature the ability to distinguish between light and dark, and using it, possibly find food sources/evade predators or whatever. the next step is a thin ridge around the photoreceptive patch. this would allow shadow, and hence a slight amount of directionality. the ridge gets higher, eventually curling round to a ball, the ideal shape if you want to localise a spot somewhere on the photoreceptive patch, improving direction et al. (note the nervous system also has to improve to cope with this additional information, but it's all gradual) then you have imaging and so on, which granted is more complicated, but still doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 Infrared sensors would probably be the first sensors to develop since an organism would want to stay in a temperature that is not lethal and migrate to a warm temperature when it is cold. Since infrared is at the bottom of the visible spectrum any improvements on that would be beneficial. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 I doubt it. light would be more useful when considering it as an energy source, and location of food, such as algae and such things. Thermal detection (and hence thermokineses) can be achieved in other ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 What other ways do you suggest that might not evolve into sight? I don't know myself and would appreciate your help. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 well like us, we have a nervous response to heat. mind you, I'm not entirely sure what the mechanism that these nerves use to convert temperature into a signal in the nerves, but I suspect the general layout of the cells would be quite different to that of the rods and cones and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 The cells you talk about sense heat upon contact which in our early developing world could be to late. Also warm areas might be missed by a matter of degrees which might also be lethal because of starvation. I still think these sensory cells might differentiate into cillia or antenna to extend their range and then progress to longer range sensors. Finally eyes. Makes sense to me. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 hmm.. it seems a little unlikely to me, but then it could have some truth to it, as goldfish and other fish can see in the IR, and when considering the thermal vents (on the base of the oceans, and one possibility of where life may have evolved) there may be some truth in it, since this would allow stuff to navigate between one vent and another. still, it's conjecture, I'll look into it, as I don't know anything much about the properties of life round these vents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by blike Just to inform you, I believe the God of the hebrew bible used evolution to create the earth. So in a sense, I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution. too bad that that is an illogical view. There is a philosphical concept that is the corner stone for almost all modern thought, that is applied to engineering, all forms of theoretical sciences, mathematics, and well everything. It is the concept of "Occams Razor" Which states that when you have two theories that predict the same results and are in all ways equal but 1 theory is more complex than the other (ie it encorporates redundancy think math you could have 1 + 1 -4 + 4 = 2 or you could have 1 + 1 = 2 the first includes redundnacy which should be removed) the less complex theory should be chosen because it does not encorporate the redundancy that the more complex theory does. Under these results, your beliefs are illogical as God is a redundant concept and thus logically must be removed from the concepet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 If there are bacteria fossils in meteorites then they are only a few DNA steps from creatures with eyes. Locating food is a great pressure for evolution. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by aman If there are bacteria fossils in meteorites then they are only a few DNA steps from creatures with eyes. Locating food is a great pressure for evolution. Just aman valid point there. we got bacteria from about 3.5million years ago (i think) in earth based fossiles too, and before someone says it, yes we do know they COULD be of terrestrial evolution, there has been a workable theory of ambiogenesis for quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 Philosophical concepts have no place in science, otherwise science should likely recognize a God. "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." The problem you're having is that you are viewing Occam's Razor as the answer-all solution. That is an incorrect view. It merely removes concepts that are not needed to explain the phenomenon. However, modern science has yet to come up with a suitable explanation for our origins. We have some of it right, but there are many things left unexplained. So, do we have a necessity? Perhaps. Maybe we just havn't discovered underlying principles that guide the universe. Regardless, with your idea of Occam's Razor, there is no necessity, and therefore nothing new should be discovered regarding our origins. What would Occam's Razor say about quantum mechanics? Sometimes nature takes the scenic route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 what do you mean "modern science has yet to come up with a suitable answer to our origins"? Evolution and the concept therein is one of the most well supported theories and most commonly observed facts out of all of science. The Big Bang likewise isn't a theory it is an observed fact (its effects are at least). and Occams Razor would support quantum mechanics because as i already said it only deals with 2 theories that have the SAME PREDICTIONS. Hence it would be between Quantum mechanics and another theory that proposes the exact same results in all cases under all circumstances which includes greater complexity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 blike doesn't believe in evolution, he thinks it's a joke, and apparently so does the research he's misinterpretting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 Evolution and the concept therein is one of the most well supported theories and most commonly observed facts out of all of science. It very well may be, but evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. It doesn't account for how the Big Bang happened, nor where the initial matter/energy came from. It fails to explain sudden the sudden explosion of single-celled life, and the development of many complex organs. Therefore there is a necessity. Pluralty should not be posited without necessity. The Big Bang likewise isn't a theory it is an observed fact (its effects are at least). Nothing in science is fact. Nothing in science is law. They are all only observable, testable theories. I'm not disagreeing with scientific opinion, I'm merely stating that science changes. Look how many timse in the past century we've had to revise theories and laws. Thats the beauty of science; it is self-correcting. Occams Razor would support quantum mechanics because as i already said it only deals with 2 theories that have the SAME PREDICTIONS. Ok, now address the necessity. blike doesn't believe in evolution, he thinks it's a joke, and apparently so does the research he's misinterpretting. Back up your claims puuuhleeeasee. First, at what point did I claim evolution was a falsehood? Second, I only claimed convergent evolution was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Bilke, no. Observations are "facts" theories are what explain the obersved facts. Hence evolution being a fact and a theory. Ambiogenesis, protiens were syntehsised in 1954 based on stuff that was present on earth back in the day, and single cells need not arrise like magic, there is a well thought out progression between cells and protiens about 15 steps i think. Big Bang: As i said an observed phenomina like the existance of a force pulling us to the earth. Where it all came from, the cosmic egg, which has been hypothesised to be a giant singularity, or a collapsed previous universe, but it doesnt need to come from anywhere, because it existed outside of the universe before time existed, hence the rules applying to the cosmic egg dont need to include law of conservation of mass energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 Bilke, no. Observations are "facts" theories are what explain the obersved facts. Hence evolution being a fact and a theory. Us being here, having this discussion is a fact; explaining that we arrived at this point by means of evolution is a theory. Ambiogenesis, protiens were syntehsised in 1954 based on stuff that was present on earth back in the day, and single cells need not arrise like magic, there is a well thought out progression between cells and protiens about 15 steps i think. "there is a well thought out progression between cells and protiens about 15 steps i think." Very interesting, let me see. Unfortunatly, single cells did arise like magic. See: this thread A few amino acids are a long way from a functioning cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now