Evolution of the Eye

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Evolution of the Eye

Postby LogicalSceptic » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:33 pm

I have heard of irreducible complexity but what I'm struggling to get my head around is the first organisms would have had no eyes.
So, how did organisms develop the ability to see?
What I mean is, chance seems to be suggesting these creatures developed eyes because they needed them?
How can an organism that has no concept of sight, develop an eye to see?
Could it have thought it into being and design it to work?
How can evolution 'know' and design an eye for animals to use?

As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:49 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:
As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?


This is wrong and a common misrepresentation in order to deny evolution.

Not only do we know exactly how the eye evolved, for each stage of the evolution we can look at contemporary organisms that have such a simpler vision.
Protozoa have "eye"-patches, i.e. photosensitive spots that let them know dark from light. Some sink these spots into sub-surface holes that only let in light from one direction: this tells them were the light is coming from.
We can find animals with more complex eyes with lenses, and with more copies.
There are even stringent computer models that show such an evolution with each step producing better vision than the previous version.

All of this is very well researched and often showcased.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19458
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:12 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:I have heard of irreducible complexity but what I'm struggling to get my head around is the first organisms would have had no eyes.
So, how did organisms develop the ability to see?
What I mean is, chance seems to be suggesting these creatures developed eyes because they needed them?
How can an organism that has no concept of sight, develop an eye to see?
Could it have thought it into being and design it to work?
How can evolution 'know' and design an eye for animals to use?

As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?

Some cells became light sensitive. Those creatures did better than the 100% blind ones. From there it's just time.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19458
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:13 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?

Are you here to post "concern troll" stuff?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:25 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:I have heard of irreducible complexity but what I'm struggling to get my head around is the first organisms would have had no eyes.
So, how did organisms develop the ability to see?
What I mean is, chance seems to be suggesting these creatures developed eyes because they needed them?
How can an organism that has no concept of sight, develop an eye to see?
Could it have thought it into being and design it to work?
How can evolution 'know' and design an eye for animals to use?

As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?


Two very common errors in there, LS. The organism does not actively develop anything. In a population of simple organisms, there will occur a number of variations quite naturally - there will be variation across the population. A variation which makes the individual organism less efficient stands a good chance of disappearing as its carriers die or are killed. A variation which doesn't affect anything in that environment may or may not hang around until it DOES have an effect (positive or negative). A variation which bestows advantage on its carrier is very soon going to be dominant within any population. There's no volition needed, and certainly the variation doesn't need to be a complete game-changer to succeed.

Your second point jumps the gun. An eye isn't an eye until it's an eye, that's true - but what about the precursors of that eye, ranging from a simple patch of skin which, for some random reason, has become photosensitive to a roundish blob on the end of a protrusion which happens to have that patch of photosensitive skin at its end? There is no 'aim' in evolution - it's a simple process of natural variation within any population which can fail as easily as succeed. Above all, those variations are incremental, rather than huge leaps.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:05 pm

they don't know how anything evolved...all just theories...I've also had evolutionists say birds developed wings just when they needed them ....who believes in magic now?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:31 pm

gorgeous wrote:they don't know how anything evolved...all just theories...I've also had evolutionists say birds developed wings just when they needed them ....who believes in magic now?


As usual, gorgeous, you just make it up as you go along. It's truly amazing how often trilobites can be used as BS detectors.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:57 pm

that's what theories are...made up stuff...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:14 pm

A scientific theory, by definition, supplies testable hypotheses (refer also to Gord's post elsewhere). It may well be 'made up' - Albert Einstein will attest to that. But those testable hypotheses are the difference between a scientific theory and an opinion or a fairy tale.

Your Seth puts up no hypotheses at all - you believe it or you don't. Albert's last hypothesis was tested recently and found to be zonkingly true. Albert 1 Seth 0.

What you consider a theory is merely an opinion based upon wishful thinking.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:21 pm

Looks like encouraged by another deluded recent example, georgie continues to think if repeating BS often enough, it will be accepted sooner or later by everyone...
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:25 pm

Seth didn't need to test...he was a spirit in the non-physical dimensions...he experienced it...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:27 pm

Oh, I accepted that she repeats BS ages ago.

Oh look - she just did it again :D

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:32 pm

seth has been right all along...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:33 pm

gorgeous wrote:Seth didn't need to test...he was a spirit in the non-physical dimensions...he experienced it...

But you didn't, so to you it is just a story. Why do you believe it?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:34 pm

my own experiences with the non-physical, relatives' experiences...my psychic dreams that come true, my psychic experiences , intuition...
Last edited by gorgeous on Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:36 pm

Poodle wrote:Oh, I accepted that she repeats BS ages ago.

Oh look - she just did it again :D

:lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:50 pm

gorgeous wrote:they don't know how anything evolved...all just theories...
No Gorgeous. We have already been through this. All creatures carry redundant DNA as a legacy from our ongoing evolution.

You have already been told this.

Now be a good bloke and go troll another forum.
:D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gord » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:59 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:How can an organism that has no concept of sight, develop an eye to see?
Could it have thought it into being and design it to work?
How can evolution 'know' and design an eye for animals to use?

As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?

These are arguments I read years ago in an anti-evolution book put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought such strange reasoning ought to have disappeared long ago.

Evolution is not a conscious decision. Nothing has ever decided to evolve into something else. Evolution is the effect of a species changing over time, not of an individual -- if you're born human, you won't evolve into something else during your lifetime, but your offspring might be slightly different, and their offspring might be slightly more different, and after many generations the difference might be so much that your descendants would be unable to reproduce with you and therefore would be called another species. But none of these are conscious decisions, either of individuals, species, or concepts such as evolution. They are natural processes. Asking how evolution "knows" about eyes, or how an organism needs to understand the concept of sight in order to evolve eyes, is the equivalent of asking how a rock can fall down a mountain without understanding the concept of gravity or of knowing what will be at the bottom when it gets there.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:09 pm

idk....it seems particles do choose...-----One for All: Five Entangled Photons Collectively Choose a Path to ...



https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... anglement/


May 13, 2010 - With properly entangled photons, however, the behavior is strongly correlated—whichever path the photons choose to follow, they do so en ... ------------------------------so now photons make a conscious decision?? ...they basically are conscious......have a life force in them...imagine that...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:21 pm

Don't become hopelessly confused between journalese and reality, gorgeous.

The photons do not actively make a choice. They are entangled and all behave in the same way - they MUST go one way or the other. The word 'choose' is not being used in any anthropomorphic way. There is no consciousness involved.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:28 pm

scientists said they choose.....so they are conscious...must have God consciousness in them....who knew....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:33 pm

gorgeous wrote:scientists said they choose.....so they are conscious...must have God consciousness in them....who knew....


No. The only time the word choose appears is in the headline. It isn't used at all in the article and certainly not in any of the quotations. Journalists write headlines. You did read further than the headline, didn't you?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:35 pm

why must they? couldn't they untangle and go any way?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby gorgeous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:41 pm

New Scientist - Dec 8, 1960 - Page 1539 - Google Books Result



https://books.google.com/books?id=PXnNaBLftUMC

Vol. 8, No. 212 - ‎Magazine
In other words, most, if not all, the photons trigger one of the multipliers only; the individual photons choose between the two paths and do not break up into two ...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:43 pm

gorgeous wrote:why must they? couldn't they untangle and go any way?
They do. Photons are wave forms with particular wave frequencies. They allow for visible light. A rainbow is when different photon wave forms interfere with each other.
rainbow.jpg
What do you think causes colours Gorgeous?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8112
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Poodle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:54 pm

Gorgeous, you're pushing a 56-year-old publication into the discussion. As far as I can see, it doesn't mention entanglement at all. Entanglement does not mean that the photons must stay together for all of existence but that they remain linked. It is the entanglement which is manipulated to keep them together. When the manipulation stops, the photons can shoot off anywhere - but they REMAIN entangled, no matter where they are in the universe.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Evolution of photon measurement in living things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:26 am

Poodle wrote:Gorgeous, you're pushing a 56-year-old publication into the discussion. As far as I can see, it doesn't mention entanglement at all.
It doesn't. Gorgeous was quote mining using google..

Sooooooo........Gorgeous? If photons travel at the speed of light....explain to us how the time dilution effect of relativity factors in to entangled photons, when we measure separated collapsing entangled wave forms at a non light speed point of view?

What does Jane Roberts acting in her "Seth" character role say about that?
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:36 am

LogicalSceptic wrote: I'm struggling to get my head around is the first organisms would have had no eyes.
So, how did organisms develop the ability to see?
Ever had a sun tan? What do you think is causing the sun tan? (Hint : photons )

What I'm pointing out here is that living things, before eyes evolved, already interacted with photon wave forms. That biological systems evolved to receive those photon wave forms in a more efficient way is to be expected.

May I also point out to you that photosynthesis evolved as a beneficial chemical reaction before eyes evolved.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:36 am

Strange double post.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:46 am

  ...triggered yet another manipulation of nothingness!  
Hi, Io the lurker.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10188
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:12 am

Am I too naive to understand this is an "honest" topic? Anyone who says he doesn't understand how eyes evolved is trolling his audience. Its just TOO stupid. Either logicalskeptic has just escape from life long captivity in an underground bunker and the first thing he does with the internet is to broadcast his lack of understanding RATHER THAN google eye evolution. Videos and everything.

It can't be more obvious................even if its not true. ((Ha, ha..... that cracked me up.))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gord » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Anyone who says he doesn't understand how eyes evolved is trolling his audience.

It depends on where he's from and what he's been taught. Not everyone manages to gain an understanding of evolution in their formative years, or even in their adult years -- for instance, just check out the Star Trek: Voyager episode called "Threshold" (sure, it's from 1996, but the level of ignorance about evolution is mind-blowing!).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10188
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:57 am

Gord: I "know" thats true.... it just doesn't "feel" like it. At least, I did allow for life long captivity....but why not google the issue first before going on line to challenge it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gord » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:01 am

Maybe google led him here? :pardon:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10188
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:02 am

but....but..... but.... if you google it, the answer is clear.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:50 pm

if I were able to understand evolution , I would be able to understand why I should not waste money buying lottery tickets .
the numbers are way beyond my ability to comprehend.

side note : the tiny bones in the ear evolved from teeth ?!?
for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace .
makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19458
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:10 pm

I buy lottery tickets regularly, but not as regularly as I buy Starbucks. The Powerball jackpot is currently >$150,000,000 dollars. I don't mind risking a few bucks on that amount of money. And part of the ticket price goes to the school systems. I'm very good with that. But please, don't play, gives me more chances.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:31 pm

psychiatry is a scam wrote:
side note : the tiny bones in the ear evolved from teeth ?!?


Upper and lower jaw bones, and yes, compared to the eye, this evolution is very bizzare.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby LogicalSceptic » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:55 pm

Gord wrote:
LogicalSceptic wrote:How can an organism that has no concept of sight, develop an eye to see?
Could it have thought it into being and design it to work?
How can evolution 'know' and design an eye for animals to use?

As I understand it, the eye wouldn't have worked until the whole thing was complete, so why didn't evolution discard it as the eye wouldn't have worked until all the pieces were finally evolved to work?

These are arguments I read years ago in an anti-evolution book put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought such strange reasoning ought to have disappeared long ago.

Evolution is not a conscious decision. Nothing has ever decided to evolve into something else. Evolution is the effect of a species changing over time, not of an individual -- if you're born human, you won't evolve into something else during your lifetime, but your offspring might be slightly different, and their offspring might be slightly more different, and after many generations the difference might be so much that your descendants would be unable to reproduce with you and therefore would be called another species. But none of these are conscious decisions, either of individuals, species, or concepts such as evolution. They are natural processes. Asking how evolution "knows" about eyes, or how an organism needs to understand the concept of sight in order to evolve eyes, is the equivalent of asking how a rock can fall down a mountain without understanding the concept of gravity or of knowing what will be at the bottom when it gets there.


"Knows" was probably the wrong choice of word. I was trying to get my head around how an organism would develop the ability to see.
The irreducible complexity of the eye is what I'd heard from theists.

LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: Evolution of the Eye

Postby LogicalSceptic » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:59 pm

gorgeous wrote:seth has been right all along...


You've been hoodwinked.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest