Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Prove an interpretation?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Prove an interpretation?
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

nesslingThat is not necessary since there are organisms that have no brains, nor even a nervous system, yet have simple eyes. And I have mentioned the evolution of neurons and brains in my previous posts. Citations are included.



Sure it is relevant, it would be useless for an organism to have the ability of detecting light, if this organism doesn't react (or do anything) when light is detected.

for example lets assume that predators are more likely to be near the light, therefore individuals that move away form the light are more likely to survive and reproduce.


In this example, the organisms would need to have at least 2 independent systems

1 a system that allows him to detect light

2 a system that makes the organism react when light is detected (move away from the light)

each of this is useless without the other

both systems have to evolve at the same time and in the same individual.

Done. The reason how cells can obtain the ability to detect light, is evolving photoreceptor proteins, i.e opsins


sure, if you prove that opsines can evolve through Darwinian mechanisms, form blind creatures you would destroy my argument
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:47 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

[img]]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/02evidenceofevolution-comparativeanatomy-131212083104-phpapp02/95/02-evidence-of-evolution-comparative-anatomy-11-638.jpg?cb=1386837162[/img]

I have a theory, maybe the ancestors of the cave fish had functional eyes, but given that eyes are useless (and maybe even selectively negative) in dark areas this fish simply lost the ability of sight.

It is fascinating to see how a creature with sight became blind trough random mutations and selection, but it would be even more fascinating if you could show a blind that evolves the ability of sight.

Creatures with sight become blind all the time, and sometimes natural selection or genetic drift keeps blind creatures alive, but the oposite has never been observed no one has ever seen a blind creature evolving in to a creature with sight..........the lack of direct observation does not prove it cant happen, but it strongly suggest that is much more probable for a creature to loose something than to gain something.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:02 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1097Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:And why would that be a problem? You do know that irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, formalised several decades before Michael Boohoo was even born?

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ution.html

And that's even before we get into the fact that you're wrong, because those steps aren't actually irreducibly complex.
that is what I am talking about

Image

No one is saying that those proto eyes would be useless, sure a proto eye that can detect light is better than nothing in an environment where detecting light represents a selective benefit.

the point is and has always been that each of those steps requires multiple independent genetic changes, even a small benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes

The evolution of domestic dogs from wolves required multiple independent genetic changes (in fact dogs are roughly 85% genetically identical to wolves, so millions of mutations have accumulated in them over the last 50.000 years). Dog genome sizes vary by up to a billion bases. Those changes happened, mutations happened and the stochastic mixing of alleles through meiosis and sexual reproduction happened, and humans selected the traits they liked for further breeding. Just as mutations that affected the evolving eyes would happen and result in differential survival and reproductive success.

There are thousands of breeds of dogs, all with their unique set of genetic changes required to make that particular breed of dog, having accumulated over generations and selected over centuries and millenia.

Mutations that affect physiology, metabolism and structure happen, they get selected. What's the problem?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:30 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:that is what I am talking about...No one is saying that those proto eyes would be useless, sure a proto eye that can detect light is better than nothing in an environment where detecting light represents a selective benefit.

the point is and has always been that each of those steps requires multiple independent genetic changes, even a small benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes


Fallacy, argument from assertion and incredulity. What makes you think that multiple mutations are needed to result in benefits and what makes you think multiple independent mutations producing beneficial effects cannot happen. Though the later maybe a straw man, but if you do agree that multiple independent mutations that produce beneficial effects can occur than you don't have an objection anymore.

leroy wrote:for example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin cells in to photosentsive cells (a proto eye) you need
a genetic change that produces photo sensibility in cells
an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain
an other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light
an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.
etc...


See one of my previous post, that answers it pretty much.

leroy wrote:what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation.


So what you are asking for is to explain an evolutionary event that took thousands of generations and list every change that happened every generation?? Such a request is ridiculous on the onset.

I don't know what this fallacy is called? Instead of shifting the goal post, the challenger puts the goal so unnecessarily high from the start intentionally so that no one can reach it, in order to give the illusion that the one being challenged lost to the challenger. Can someone help me out here what this fallacy is called?

It is like asking to provide a step by step reconstruction of a murder, wherein each step is laid out such it gives the detailed event that happened within one minute, starting from the perpetrator leaving the sight of any eye witness and ending with the death of the victim. Of course, if you provided enough evidence for things like a motive, lack of alibi, murder weapon possessed by the suspect, finger prints of the suspect, etc. such that it already gives a clear picture that person X murdered the victim, you don't need all the other details.

The same we can do with the evolution of organs. We don't know everything about a single subject, that includes evolution. We have enough clues to tell what happened.

I kinda works like this.
Image
Of course, if you are smart enough, you can tell what this is with even less clues than there is given. You don't need all the pieces of a puzzle to see the big picture.

This gets even more absurd when you compare the detail that the theory evolution gives you when trying to answer the question of how the eye originated.

Image
Image
Image
Image

What is the detail that the other answer brings?
Image
Oh yeah, the same answer for damn everything.

leroy wrote:an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain, and other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.
nesslingThat is not necessary since there are organisms that have no brains, nor even a nervous system, yet have simple eyes. And I have mentioned the evolution of neurons and brains in my previous posts. Citations are included.

Sure it is relevant, it would be useless for an organism to have the ability of detecting light, if this organism doesn't react (or do anything) when light is detected.


And as I said, you don't need a brain to do that. So your argument (which I have highlighted to put the context back where it belongs) is invalid.

leroy wrote:organisms would need to have at least 2 independent systems
1 a system that allows him to detect light
2 a system that makes the organism react when light is detected (move away from the light)
each of this is useless without the other
both systems have to evolve at the same time and in the same individual.


Or each evolved independently for different purposes and later cot coopted for a different purpose. That is one of the points that those who champion Behe's credulous concept of irreducible complexity completely forget or outright ignore.

Let's take for example the simplest for of eye there is, the eyespot apparatus of Euglenids. The protein that is activated by photons is a rhodopsin-like protein, which is the largest group of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR for short). GPCR's are the receptors that activate an internal cAMP-dependant signal transduction pathway in response to an external stimulus, in this case photons. This transaction pathway induces a response to an organism, even those that are uni cellular. This is the second system "a system that makes the organism react to stimuli" that you mentioned.

Such signal transduction pathways that uses GPCR as the trigger and cAMP as the second messenger, are vary wildly and exhibit numerous functions. The evolution of these systems is extensively researched.
Image
Many of these pathways exists without the first system you mentioned "a system to detect light", yet they all function for something else, thus a signaling system doesn't have to evolve at the same time as a light detector in order to be functional.

System 1 and 2 don't have to evolve at the same time. The second one evolved first and the later evolved as a variant of the already existing GPCR receptor protein that changed its function.Your argument from ignorance once again falls flat on its face.

Also, what is interesting is that our own opsins are also GPCR proteins that induce the same pathways, and its evolution was explained in my citation that I previously showed to you. I will highlight what you may have missed next.

leroy wrote:
Done. The reason how cells can obtain the ability to detect light, is evolving photoreceptor proteins, i.e opsins

sure, if you prove that opsines can evolve through Darwinian mechanisms, form blind creatures you would destroy my argument


I already have done right after that quote. Well I haven't proven that, the hard working scientists who have given many years of their lives researching this subject to find the answer, testing their hypotheses and putting them to the test. I will repeat here (and highlight the thing about GPCR proteins).

Origin of opsins wrote:Opsins, and their major divisions (25) arose very early in metazoan evolution. In this article the term ‘opsin’ will refer only to ‘Type 2 animal opsins’, and not to the ‘Type 1 microbial opsins’ of bacteria or the ‘channelrhodopsins’ of algae, both of which are unrelated and appear to have arisen by convergent evolution. The phylogeny of ciliary opsins will be considered in Sections 5 and 6 for chordates generally, and for the vertebrate retina, but for now the questions are: How did the ancestral opsin originate? and What were the initial stages in its diversification?. In addressing these questions, important clues have been obtained through analysis of a number of cnidarian opsin sequences that have become available since 2007 (12, 26-31).

Animal opsins evolved from within the eponymous ‘Rhodopsin family’ of the ‘GRAFS’ superfamily of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), and it is known that this superfamily originated in an ancient eukaryote that existed prior to the divergence of fungi (32)). Recently, Feuda et al (30)) analyzed the phylogeny of opsins and proposed a scheme for the early origin of opsins. They showed that the closest relatives of the opsins are found in the lineage that includes the vertebrate receptors for melatonin. However, for the corresponding GPCRs in invertebrates the ligand has not yet been identified, and so it is not clear what the ancestral ligand might have been at the time that the opsin lineage diverged.

One potential problem with the analysis of Feuda et al (30) is its reliance on the (unproven) existence of R-opsins in cnidaria, but that issue appears to have been resolved by an independent and nearly simultaneous study of opsins from a coral (31), that clearly identified the existence of an R-opsin. The following scenario for the early origin of animal opsins, illustrated in Figure 2B builds on the report of Feuda et al (30), and is presented here as the first in a series of scenarios/hypotheses for the events that gave rise to photoreceptors:

A-1) The forerunner of the first opsin arose through duplication of a GPCR in an ancient metazoan, at a time prior to the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans.

A-2) That forerunner protein did not possess the retinal-binding lysine (‘K296′) in the seventh transmembrane helix (30); this suggests that retinaldehyde ligand occupied the internal cavity by means of non-covalent binding, as for ligands in conventional GPCRs, and in Figure 2B this pre-opsin is termed a ‘retinaldehyde receptor’. The placozoan Trichoplax has a homolog of opsin (dubbed placopsin by Feuda et al, 2012), that likewise is devoid of the retinal-binding lysine residue.

A-3) Acquisition of an appropriately situated lysine residue within the seventh transmembrane segment of that receptor allowed the retinaldehyde ligand to bind covalently. Initially, the Schiff base bond is likely to have been unprotonated, so that the molecule would have absorbed in the UV. Acquisition of an appropriately located negatively charged residue (e.g. E181) permitted the bond to be protonated, thereby creating the ancestral opsin, and enabling the absorption peak to be shifted into the ‘visible’ spectrum.

A-4) As for most opsins (though not for vertebrate visual opsins), the activated metarhodopsin state of this opsin was thermally stable and could undergo photoreversal to the rhodopsin state. Hence this protein probably did not require a source of 11-cis retinal and could instead utilize all-trans retinal perfectly well.

A-5) Subsequently, two duplications of that earliest opsin occurred, during the relatively short interval between the divergence of placozoa and the divergence of cnidarians from bilaterians. Thus, all of the duplications indicated in Figure 2B took place shortly prior to the first of the numbered branchings shown in Figure 1 (i.e. prior to #1).

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain, an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

Image
Figure 2. Origin of opsins, and their possible association with membrane type. A, Opsin phylogeny. Cnidarians have orthologs of each bilaterian opsin subfamily; i.e. the C-, R-, and RGR/Go-opsin subfamilies. Numbers indicate support values (Bayesian PPs) for key nodes. From Feuda et al (2012). B, Hypothesized duplications of ancestral opsin and its precursors, and suggested association with membrane type. An ancient GPCR (related to extant vertebrate melatonin receptors) duplicated, and its ligand became retinaldehyde, which bound non-covalently; this is denoted as ‘Retinaldehyde receptor’. After the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans (~711 Mya), this GPCR evolved a lysine residue in its seventh transmembrane segment and a negatively charged residue (counterion) so that retinaldehyde bound covalently via a protonated Schiff base linkage; this form is denoted ‘Ancestral opsin’. Within a relatively short interval (prior to the divergence of cnidarians, ~700 Mya), this opsin duplicated twice, giving rise to three major families of opsins: C-opsins, R-opsins, and RGR/Go-opsins. It is proposed that these three opsins preferentially associated with ciliary membrane, microvillar membrane, and the membranes of intracellular organelles, respectively. Note that all these events occurred just prior to the starting point of Fig. 1.

Hypothesized association between opsin type and membrane type . A contributory factor in the co-evolution of opsin classes and photoreceptor classes may have been a preferential association of the different opsins with different regions of membrane, as indicated in Figure 2B. Accordingly, the hypothetical scenario for the early evolution of opsins is extended as follows:

A-6) The two variants of opsin that emerged after the first duplication event may have trafficked preferentially to the membrane of sub-cellular organelles and to surface membrane. Those variants would have given rise to the RGR- division and the C-/R- division, respectively, of modern opsins.

A-7) Following the duplication event that created the distinction between C- and R-opsins, these two variants trafficked to ciliary and microvillar membrane, respectively. In Figure 2B this duplication is shown as having occurred subsequent to the duplication mentioned in the previous point, but at present one cannot reliably distinguish the order in which this pair of duplication events occurred.

A-8) Subsequently, cells expressing the C- and R-opsin classes became distinct from each other, through a process termed ‘division of labor’ (5, 33), leading to (a) ciliary photoreceptors that possessed C-opsins and (b) microvillar photoreceptors that possessed R-opsins; see next Section. The third variant of opsin, RGR-opsin, tended to be expressed in the membranes of intracellular organelles, possibly as an additional opsin in the first two classes of photoreceptors.

A-9) Later in evolution, further division of labor occurred, so that (for example) RGR-opsin could be expressed in separate cells. This would explain how it is possible, on the one hand, for squid photoreceptors to contain an R-opsin in their microvillar membranes as well as retinochrome (an RGR-opsin) in their intracellular organelles, and, on the other hand, for vertebrate cones and rods to contain only a C-opsin in their outer segments whereas RPE cells contain only RGR-opsin in their endoplasmic reticulum.


However, you will dismiss this anyway by way of saying
Image

leroy wrote:I have a theory, maybe the ancestors of the cave fish had functional eyes, but given that eyes are useless (and maybe even selectively negative) in dark areas this fish simply lost the ability of sight.


That is not a theory, that is a hypothesis, though it is evolutionary.
You are making progress.

leroy wrote:It is fascinating to see how a creature with sight became blind trough random mutations and selection, but it would be even more fascinating if you could show a blind that evolves the ability of sight.


R. Bolowsky wrote:Image
The offspring of crossbred blind cave fish see like their surface-dwelling cousins, shown in the background.


There, the parents are blind, the offspring have the ability to see.

leroy wrote:Creatures with sight become blind all the time, and sometimes natural selection or genetic drift keeps blind creatures alive, but the oposite has never been observed no one has ever seen a blind creature evolving in to a creature with sight..........the lack of direct observation does not prove it cant happen, but it strongly suggest that is much more probable for a creature to loose something than to gain something.


The amount of ignorance here, holy shit.

"Creatures with sight become blind all the time"
As a result of disease maybe, but according to evolution. Yes that has occurred several times independently, just as the evolution of eyes.

"and sometimes natural selection or genetic drift keeps blind creatures alive"
Natural selection nor drift keeps things alive. Natural selection dictates what is more likely to survive the environment and drift is just the random fixation of mutations. That just shows that you don't understand these things at all.

"but the oposite has never been observed no one has ever seen a blind creature evolving in to a creature with sight the lack of direct observation does not prove it cant happen, but it strongly suggest that is much more probable for a creature to loose something than to gain something."
We didn't observe the cave fish loosing its eyes due to evolution either. Both the gain and loss of eyes have evolved independently. Your bias selectively ignored the evidence for the gain of eyes that I have provided and has no problem accepting the loss of eyes. Thus you reached a conclusion that the loss of things is more likely due to conformation bias.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:56 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3247Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:I don't know what this fallacy is called? Instead of shifting the goal post, the challenger puts the goal so unnecessarily high from the start intentionally so that no one can reach it, in order to give the illusion that the one being challenged lost to the challenger. Can someone help me out here what this fallacy is called?


It is a specific use of a Gish Gallop. Instead of making several unrelated challenges and expecting you not to have time to answer all of them, dandan/leroy is just pointing to one thing, the eye, and asking you to explain most of the steps of its evolution.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:13 am
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2339Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:the point is and has always been that each of those steps requires multiple independent genetic changes, even a small benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes


Well done. You completely missed the overall point of the article. The simple fact is that your assertion that it requires multiple independent genetic changes is simply wrong, and the reason it's wrong is because you're thinking of each stage as a target, which is nonsense.

Light sensitivity in a cell generated during embryology can occur in a single step, because light sensitivity requires... a protein! Genes code for proteins, and opsins are proteins.

for example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin cells in to photosentsive cells (a proto eye) you need

a genetic change that produces photo sensibility in cells

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain

an other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light

an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

etc...


No, all this is wrong. The initial opsin provides an advantage, because it receives photons and outputs an electrical signal, which is sufficient for it to be useful. Everything after that is simply improving the efficiency of the opsin in providing advantage. As soon as you have opsins, you have advantage.

what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........


What, like you did for god? Hahaha.

If you cant do this, it would not be a big deal, all you have to do is admit that this a valid argument against evolution, admitting that there is a valid argument against a theory is not a big deal, all theories have holes,


Well, the problem is that it isn't a valid argument against evolution and, more importantly, there can be no valid argument against evolution, because evolution has been observed at every level predicted by the theory. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:27 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2339Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:I don't know what this fallacy is called? Instead of shifting the goal post, the challenger puts the goal so unnecessarily high from the start intentionally so that no one can reach it, in order to give the illusion that the one being challenged lost to the challenger. Can someone help me out here what this fallacy is called?


It is a specific use of a Gish Gallop. Instead of making several unrelated challenges and expecting you not to have time to answer all of them, dandan/leroy is just pointing to one thing, the eye, and asking you to explain most of the steps of its evolution.


I call it argumentum ad elbow-joint-of-the-lesser-spotted-weasel-frog, after Dawkins. It erects a single thing for which the apologist thinks evolution has no explanation, setting aside the vast swathes of things that evolution does explain.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:30 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2922Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Greetings,

leroy wrote:what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........

This has been explained to you in any number of threads in which you've taken part - yet you still trot out the same thing.

"...each step has to be positive..."

No, it doesn't.

The majority of mutations are NEUTRAL.

Lethal mutations are dropped from the gene pool, because they invariably kill the organism or its offspring.

Non-lethal mutations - positive and neutral - are passed on because they either benefit or, at least, have no effect either way on descendants.

"...each step has to be achievable in 1 generation..."

No, it doesn't.

Mutations - relevant or not to a given trait - can occur in any order.

Generations can go by before a relevant mutation occurs, even though other mutations are occurring.

However long it takes, when all the relevant mutations occur, you have a given trait.

A photo-sensitive skin-cell without a brain to process it may make no sense to you - but it's just a mutation, as long as it's not lethal, it gets passed on.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:46 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2339Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

leroy wrote:what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........

This has been explained to you in any number of threads in which you've taken part - yet you still trot out the same thing.

"...each step has to be positive..."

No, it doesn't.

The majority of mutations are NEUTRAL.


I'd go a bit further than this for clarity. Which point on the spectrum between beneficial and deleterious isn't a function of the mutation, it's entirely a function of the environment the new allele finds itself in, whether that be the environment of the genome or the ecological environment the organism resides in.

I like to use the sickle gene to highlight this because, in some environments, this allele provides some benefit that can be selected for, because it provides increased resistance to malaria. Outside those environments, it's mildly deleterious. Only mildly because, in the majority of cases, sickle-cell anaemia doesn't manifest until after reproductive age. Also, it requires two copies of the gene, one from each parent, to express.

Thus, while we see sickle-cell anaemia as bad, the gene that codes for it is actually mildly beneficial because of the protection it gives in helping some to survive to reproductive age.

Thus, the entire beneficial/deleterious dichotomy is not only false, because it's fuzzy rather than binary, but it isn't a function of the allele. Mutations in and of themselves have no place on the beneficial/deleterious spectrum, because that spectrum isa a function of the environmental backdrop.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:12 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1097Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........

Why would it have to be achievable in 1 generation? Why not 2, or 5, or a hundred? The answer is that it doesn't.

Why would it have to be "positive" rather than neutral? It doesn't. It could even be slightly deleterious and still fix by drift in a small population, or substantially deleterious yet hitchike with another beneficial allele.

Why would someone have to provide a step by step path at this level of detail? Do you even have any other beliefs which are supported by such a level corroboration? Of course you don't.

Isn't it obvious you're deliberately setting the bar irrationally high? Yes, yes it is.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:26 pm
thenexttodie
Online
Posts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:You argue that the receptor cells need to be covered in order to be shaded by direct sunlight, but that doesn't explain the blind spot.


You were arguing that the human eyes are poorly designed when compared to mollusk eyes and thus is evidence of a homolical, evolutionary ancestary, refuting intelligent design.

The reason why evolutionist used to argue this is because in an octopus eye the nerves are behind the photo cells. In a human eye, the nerves connect to the front of the photo cells. So its backwards. This was once thought by evolutionists to be a poor design. We now know that it is not, for the reasons I have explained already in my other posts.

The "blind spot" is a small hole where the optic nerves enter the human eye. It has no effect in our daily lives and is only perceivable when doing something unusual, like reading a text 3 inches from your face with 1 eye closed. Even then most people wouldn't notice it. Go ahead and try it.

Nesslig20 wrote:

[talking about snails]During their quest for shade, they are in direct sunlight.....which doesn't help your argument very much.
Are you suggesting snails might possibly have better vision than humans? I am not sure what you point is or how this hurts my argument.
Nesslig20 wrote: Nor does it explain why fish that live in the same environment as octopus, still have the same blind spot.


I know. But this is YOUR problem. Not mine. What good does it do you to endlessly compare even opsins, when you did not even know how human eyes work? That is the real question.

The facts I have presented are up to date and sound. And are commonly known and published. Saying that fish eyes are different from opctopus eyes does not refute the fact that humans would be far worse of with mollusk eyes, than ´the backward eyes we do have.


Do you now understand this?
Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:40 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:You argue that the receptor cells need to be covered in order to be shaded by direct sunlight, but that doesn't explain the blind spot.

You were arguing that the human eyes are poorly designed when compared to mollusk eyes and thus is evidence of a homolical, evolutionary ancestary, refuting intelligent design.


Wrong, I pointed out the pattern that different types of eye exhibits. Vertebrates (is a lineage of animals) with their unique type of eye that has a blind spot. Mollusks (a separate lineage) have their own eyes (of various stages of complexity) and cephalopods even have lensed that is superficially similar to that of the vertebrates, but their eyes still are the same type as that of other mollusks. All vertebrates have blindspot eyes, but no mollusk has that. The occurrence of structures with similar functions across different taxa, but still unique within each taxa, is the exact sort of hierarchal pattern that evolution via common descent would produce.

This above is evidence FOR evolution (without mentioning bad design at all), this below is evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no alternative explanation to this observation (other than the designer had this weird tendency to design life as an evolutionary hierarchy for no reason at all), and to make matters worse, the design of the eye in the lineage that include us (the vertebrates) have a embarrassingly bad design flaw - the blindspot. Which mollusks don't have. Form a engineering perspective, this doesn't make any sense at all.

thenexttodie wrote:The reason why evolutionist used to argue this is because in an octopus eye the nerves are behind the photo cells. In a human eye, the nerves connect to the front of the photo cells. So its backwards. This was once thought by evolutionists to be a poor design. We now know that it is not, for the reasons I have explained already in my other posts.


Assuming you are right about this, this doesn't address the blind spot that I brought up. So it is arguing against a straw man.

thenexttodie wrote:The "blind spot" is a small hole where the optic nerves enter the human eye. It has no effect in our daily lives and is only perceivable when doing something unusual, like reading a text 3 inches from your face with 1 eye closed. Even then most people wouldn't notice it. Go ahead and try it.


So it is a design flaw that is largely unnoticeable. Trying to reduce the significance of a design flaw doesn't make the design flaw go a way. There is STILL a blind spot.

Also, even if you don't notice them, that doesn't mean it still significant.

The reason why we often don't notice the blind spot, is because our brains fills in the space. Even if you have one eye closed you would not notice the blind spot, unless something moved in and out of this line of vision within this spot. Also, there are spaces within your field of vision that is not binocular (in other words, the vision of the two eyes don't overlap). If you look straight ahead, both eye spots occupy the binocular vision, but if you look out to the side, the sight of one of your eyes is blocked by your nose. So your blind spots do have an effect within these areas, even though you don't notice them.

Your brain process the poor data that the eyes provides into something that "makes sense" based on the available cues. If you have a white sheet of paper with a small black dot within the blind spot, the brain wouldn't notice the black dot, but still would see the white sheet and thus fills in the space with "white sheet".

Here is a great Vsauce video about how the eye "views" the world.


thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:
[talking about snails]During their quest for shade, they are in direct sunlight.....which doesn't help your argument very much.
Are you suggesting snails might possibly have better vision than humans? I am not sure what you point is or how this hurts my argument.


Straw man, I am not suggesting that at all. Making straw man fallacies doesn't help your argument.

Your argument was that the reason why mollusks don't need the blindspot eye because "they don't live in direct sunlight".
previously thenexttodie wrote:It seems to me that the most up to date information we have shows the human eye is far better equipped than an octopus eye to handle the effects of constantly direct sunlight exposure.


While for one thing, there are mollusks that live in the same environment as us (both live in direct sunlight) and there are vertebrates living in the same environment as the octopus (both don't live in direct sunlight) yet in each scenario we STILL have different eyes. If one is better equipped for one of these environment than at least one group in both cases has the not-better-equipped eye for that environment.

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote: Nor does it explain why fish that live in the same environment as octopus, still have the same blind spot.

I know. But this is YOUR problem. Not mine.


Wrong, this is your problem. According to you, the eyes of fish are better equipped for an environment that they are not in.

thenexttodie wrote:What good does it do you to endlessly compare even opsins, when you did not even know how human eyes work? That is the real question.


What makes you think I don't know how the human eye works?
It does good to compare the opsins since that is how scientists do research in finding the answer, well it doesn't do good for you since you find the answer they found uncomfortable.

thenexttodie wrote:The facts I have presented are up to date and sound.


Well saying so, doesn't make it so, but even assuming that. As I pointed out, your argument still doesn't hold. Both eyes are found in both environments with direct and not direct sunlight. If the vertebrate eye is better equipped for the environment with direct sunlight, fish are in the wrong environment (as they are living with octopi) and snails have the wrong eyes (as they are living with terrestrial vertebrates like us).

thenexttodie wrote:Saying that fish eyes are different from opctopus eyes does not refute the fact that humans would be far worse of with mollusk eyes, than ´the backward eyes we do have.


You are not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that we would be better off with mollusk eyes, nor am I saying we would be better of without blind spots. Our blind spot are not detrimental to our survival. Our brains and rapid eye movement compensates for the failure that the blind spot brings. That doesn't mean that blind spots are not a design flaw. A better design would be eyes without a blind spot, such that our brains don't need to overwork to fill in the space.

thenexttodie wrote:Do you now understand this?


Yes I understand that you don't understand this.

Summary of your misunderstanding.

"X contains a design flaw, while Y doesn't" ≠ "Having Y would be better than having X"
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:33 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:[

Fallacy, argument from assertion and incredulity. What makes you think that multiple mutations are needed to result in benefits and what makes you think multiple independent mutations producing beneficial effects cannot happen. Though the later maybe a straw man, but if you do agree that multiple independent mutations that produce beneficial effects can occur than you don't have an objection anymore.


well you are the one who proclaims evolution, you are the one who has the burden, if you think that each of these steps is possible with 1 genetic change feel free to prove it.

if each of this steps requires multiple genetic changes, then each change (or at least most of them) would have to be beneficial, please explain which genetic changes are those.

Image



So what you are asking for is to explain an evolutionary event that took thousands of generations and list every change that happened every generation?? Such a request is ridiculous on the onset


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, you don't have to explain every single change, the problem si that your haven't explained any genetic change, not even 1, of all the thousands or millions that a blind creature has to suffer in order to get an eye, you haven't been capable of identifying 1 mutation that would represent 1 step closer to modern eyes, and that would be selected by natural selection.

you don't have to explain every single step, but at least a small sample of all the steps should be identified.


for example.

We know that domestic dogs evolved from wolves.

> A genetic change that would cause the wolf not to grow much, has been identified

> A genetic change that would cause hairlessness has been identified

> genetic changes that would cause friendly behavior has been identified

> genetic changes that would help the dog to digest man made food has been identified

etc. etc.

so even though we cant explain every single step, at least some genetic changes have been identified..... each of this genetic changes is achievable in 1 generation, each represents a step closer to modern domestic dogs, and each of this would be selected (in this case by artificial selection)

why cant you do something similar with eyes?


or why don't you simply admit that the genetics related to eyes are not well understood and that it is not possible to provide a viable path doe to our limited knowledge?



Of course, if you are smart enough, you can tell what this is with even less clues than there is given. You don't need all the pieces of a puzzle to see the big picture.


the problem is that you haven't provided any of the pieces. you haven't identified a single gene that would be selected by natural selection and that would represent 1 step closer to form a modern.


Or each evolved independently for different purposes and later cot coopted for a different purpose. That is one of the points that those who champion Behe's credulous concept of irreducible complexity completely forget or outright ignore.


well prove it

I am asking for examples of genetic changes that would be selected by natural selection, and that would represent a step closer towards modern eyes,

no one is saying that these changes have to be related to sight.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:00 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Rumraket wrote:
leroy wrote:what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........

Why would it have to be achievable in 1 generation? Why not 2, or 5, or a hundred? The answer is that it doesn't.

Why would it have to be "positive" rather than neutral? It doesn't. It could even be slightly deleterious and still fix by drift in a small population, or substantially deleterious yet hitchike with another beneficial allele.

Why would someone have to provide a step by step path at this level of detail? Do you even have any other beliefs which are supported by such a level corroboration? Of course you don't.

Isn't it obvious you're deliberately setting the bar irrationally high? Yes, yes it is.



well by definition a step is achievable in 1 generation, with step I mean a genetic change that would be selected by natural selection and that would represent a step closer towards a modern eye.

If you what to proclaim that blind creatures evolved modern eyes by accumulating neutral mutations, then you would be claiming mount improbable .........most neutral mutations are removed by genetic drift.

I am not setting the bar high, I am just asking for a couple of examples of genetic changes achievable in 1 generation, that would be selected by natural selection and that would represent a step closer towards modern eyes..............this has been donde with the wolf t dog evolution an with many other examples that creationist accept and consider possible and even predicted by their model, why cant you do the same with the eye or with any othe example that creationists consider impossible?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:08 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2339Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:each change (or at least most of them) would have to be beneficial


This is simply not true, and the fact that it isn't true has been pointed out six ways from Sunday.

You're operating from an entirely false premise. Not only are they not required to be beneficial, they're not even required to be beneficial in the context of their environment. There's no sense in which your contention isn't fundamentally wrong.
Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:37 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3247Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:most neutral mutations are removed by genetic drift.


:facepalm:

Wikipedia - Neutral Mutation wrote:Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In population genetics, mutations in which natural selection does not affect the spread of the mutation in a species are termed neutral mutations. Neutral mutations that are inheritable and not linked to any genes under selection will either be lost or will replace all other alleles of the gene. This loss or fixation of the gene proceeds based on random sampling known as genetic drift. A neutral mutation that is in linkage disequilibrium with other alleles that are under selection may proceed to loss or fixation via genetic hitchhiking and/or background selection.


At this point, it just seems like you are going out of your way to be wrong.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:54 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:[Fallacy, argument from assertion and incredulity. What makes you think that multiple mutations are needed to result in benefits and what makes you think multiple independent mutations producing beneficial effects cannot happen. Though the later maybe a straw man, but if you do agree that multiple independent mutations that produce beneficial effects can occur than you don't have an objection anymore.

well you are the one who proclaims evolution, you are the one who has the burden, if you think that each of these steps is possible with 1 genetic change feel free to prove it.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You made two claims:
1. each of those steps requires multiple independent genetic changes,
and
2. even a small benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes

These are the claims that you made so you have the burden.
I didn't claim that each step is possible with 1 genetic change - straw man fallacy.

leroy wrote:if each of this steps requires multiple genetic changes, then each change (or at least most of them) would have to be beneficial, please explain which genetic changes are those.

Someone else beat me to it.
hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:each change (or at least most of them) would have to be beneficial

This is simply not true, and the fact that it isn't true has been pointed out six ways from Sunday.

You're operating from an entirely false premise. Not only are they not required to be beneficial, they're not even required to be beneficial in the context of their environment. There's no sense in which your contention isn't fundamentally wrong.

Also I have posted this (for the third time now) that includes several genetic changes on the evolution of opsins. These are not all that have happened, obviously, but these were the major ones. The most common type were duplications of older genes that got modified for a different purpose. Gene duplication is a common theme in the evolution of new genes.
Origin of opsins wrote:Opsins, and their major divisions (25) arose very early in metazoan evolution. In this article the term ‘opsin’ will refer only to ‘Type 2 animal opsins’, and not to the ‘Type 1 microbial opsins’ of bacteria or the ‘channelrhodopsins’ of algae, both of which are unrelated and appear to have arisen by convergent evolution. The phylogeny of ciliary opsins will be considered in Sections 5 and 6 for chordates generally, and for the vertebrate retina, but for now the questions are: How did the ancestral opsin originate? and What were the initial stages in its diversification?. In addressing these questions, important clues have been obtained through analysis of a number of cnidarian opsin sequences that have become available since 2007 (12, 26-31).

Animal opsins evolved from within the eponymous ‘Rhodopsin family’ of the ‘GRAFS’ superfamily of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), and it is known that this superfamily originated in an ancient eukaryote that existed prior to the divergence of fungi (32)). Recently, Feuda et al (30)) analyzed the phylogeny of opsins and proposed a scheme for the early origin of opsins. They showed that the closest relatives of the opsins are found in the lineage that includes the vertebrate receptors for melatonin. However, for the corresponding GPCRs in invertebrates the ligand has not yet been identified, and so it is not clear what the ancestral ligand might have been at the time that the opsin lineage diverged.

One potential problem with the analysis of Feuda et al (30) is its reliance on the (unproven) existence of R-opsins in cnidaria, but that issue appears to have been resolved by an independent and nearly simultaneous study of opsins from a coral (31), that clearly identified the existence of an R-opsin. The following scenario for the early origin of animal opsins, illustrated in Figure 2B builds on the report of Feuda et al (30), and is presented here as the first in a series of scenarios/hypotheses for the events that gave rise to photoreceptors:

A-1) The forerunner of the first opsin arose through duplication of a GPCR in an ancient metazoan, at a time prior to the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans.

A-2) That forerunner protein did not possess the retinal-binding lysine (‘K296′) in the seventh transmembrane helix (30); this suggests that retinaldehyde ligand occupied the internal cavity by means of non-covalent binding, as for ligands in conventional GPCRs, and in Figure 2B this pre-opsin is termed a ‘retinaldehyde receptor’. The placozoan Trichoplax has a homolog of opsin (dubbed placopsin by Feuda et al, 2012), that likewise is devoid of the retinal-binding lysine residue.

A-3) Acquisition of an appropriately situated lysine residue within the seventh transmembrane segment of that receptor allowed the retinaldehyde ligand to bind covalently. Initially, the Schiff base bond is likely to have been unprotonated, so that the molecule would have absorbed in the UV. Acquisition of an appropriately located negatively charged residue (e.g. E181) permitted the bond to be protonated, thereby creating the ancestral opsin, and enabling the absorption peak to be shifted into the ‘visible’ spectrum.

A-4) As for most opsins (though not for vertebrate visual opsins), the activated metarhodopsin state of this opsin was thermally stable and could undergo photoreversal to the rhodopsin state. Hence this protein probably did not require a source of 11-cis retinal and could instead utilize all-trans retinal perfectly well.

A-5) Subsequently, two duplications of that earliest opsin occurred, during the relatively short interval between the divergence of placozoa and the divergence of cnidarians from bilaterians. Thus, all of the duplications indicated in Figure 2B took place shortly prior to the first of the numbered branchings shown in Figure 1 (i.e. prior to #1).

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain, an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

Image
Figure 2. Origin of opsins, and their possible association with membrane type. A, Opsin phylogeny. Cnidarians have orthologs of each bilaterian opsin subfamily; i.e. the C-, R-, and RGR/Go-opsin subfamilies. Numbers indicate support values (Bayesian PPs) for key nodes. From Feuda et al (2012). B, Hypothesized duplications of ancestral opsin and its precursors, and suggested association with membrane type. An ancient GPCR (related to extant vertebrate melatonin receptors) duplicated, and its ligand became retinaldehyde, which bound non-covalently; this is denoted as ‘Retinaldehyde receptor’. After the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans (~711 Mya), this GPCR evolved a lysine residue in its seventh transmembrane segment and a negatively charged residue (counterion) so that retinaldehyde bound covalently via a protonated Schiff base linkage; this form is denoted ‘Ancestral opsin’. Within a relatively short interval (prior to the divergence of cnidarians, ~700 Mya), this opsin duplicated twice, giving rise to three major families of opsins: C-opsins, R-opsins, and RGR/Go-opsins. It is proposed that these three opsins preferentially associated with ciliary membrane, microvillar membrane, and the membranes of intracellular organelles, respectively. Note that all these events occurred just prior to the starting point of Fig. 1.

Hypothesized association between opsin type and membrane type . A contributory factor in the co-evolution of opsin classes and photoreceptor classes may have been a preferential association of the different opsins with different regions of membrane, as indicated in Figure 2B. Accordingly, the hypothetical scenario for the early evolution of opsins is extended as follows:

A-6) The two variants of opsin that emerged after the first duplication event may have trafficked preferentially to the membrane of sub-cellular organelles and to surface membrane. Those variants would have given rise to the RGR- division and the C-/R- division, respectively, of modern opsins.

A-7) Following the duplication event that created the distinction between C- and R-opsins, these two variants trafficked to ciliary and microvillar membrane, respectively. In Figure 2B this duplication is shown as having occurred subsequent to the duplication mentioned in the previous point, but at present one cannot reliably distinguish the order in which this pair of duplication events occurred.

A-8) Subsequently, cells expressing the C- and R-opsin classes became distinct from each other, through a process termed ‘division of labor’ (5, 33), leading to (a) ciliary photoreceptors that possessed C-opsins and (b) microvillar photoreceptors that possessed R-opsins; see next Section. The third variant of opsin, RGR-opsin, tended to be expressed in the membranes of intracellular organelles, possibly as an additional opsin in the first two classes of photoreceptors.

A-9) Later in evolution, further division of labor occurred, so that (for example) RGR-opsin could be expressed in separate cells. This would explain how it is possible, on the one hand, for squid photoreceptors to contain an R-opsin in their microvillar membranes as well as retinochrome (an RGR-opsin) in their intracellular organelles, and, on the other hand, for vertebrate cones and rods to contain only a C-opsin in their outer segments whereas RPE cells contain only RGR-opsin in their endoplasmic reticulum.


leroy wrote:
So what you are asking for is to explain an evolutionary event that took thousands of generations and list every change that happened every generation?? Such a request is ridiculous on the onset

No, you don't have to explain every single change, the problem is that your haven't explained any genetic change, not even 1, of all the thousands or millions that a blind creature has to suffer in order to get an eye, you haven't been capable of identifying 1 mutation that would represent 1 step closer to modern eyes, and that would be selected by natural selection.
you don't have to explain every single step, but at least a small sample of all the steps should be identified.

I have, look at my citation above "the Origin of Opsins".

leroy wrote:for example.
We know that domestic dogs evolved from wolves.
> A genetic change that would cause the wolf not to grow much, has been identified
> A genetic change that would cause hairlessness has been identified
> genetic changes that would cause friendly behavior has been identified
> genetic changes that would help the dog to digest man made food has been identified
etc. etc.
....why cant you do something similar with eyes?

And genetic changes in opsins (light sensitive proteins), genes involved in development of the eye (like Pax6) and crystallines (structural proteins of the lens) and more have been identified. Many changes involve the same gene duplication mechanism.

Citations:
- Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision
- Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
- Deep homology of eye development and the parallel evolution of animal eyes.
- Flexibly deployed Pax genes in eye development at the early evolution of animals demonstrated by studies on a hydrozoan jellyfish
- Cephalopod eye evolution was modulated by the acquisition of Pax-6 splicing variants
- Evolution of crystallins for a role in the vertebrate eye lens

leroy wrote:why cant you do something similar with eyes?

I didn't, the hard working scientists did.

leroy wrote:or why don't you simply admit that the genetics related to eyes are not well understood

I would admit that in the sense that there is always more to learn about a subject. That is the very essence of a theory, nothing is considered as "we understand it, we are done".
Of course, that is not what you mean. You mean that we don't understand this at all, which we don't. We do understand more about this than you want to admit. The details are still discussed among experts, but they all share the general conclusion that yes, opsins, crystallines, and other elements involved in the function and structure of the eye have all evolved and we do have a damn good understanding of how they did. Again read the citations.

leroy wrote:and that it is not possible to provide a viable path doe to our limited knowledge?

I don't admit to that since I have cited article after article that DO provide that.

leroy wrote:
Of course, if you are smart enough, you can tell what this is with even less clues than there is given. You don't need all the pieces of a puzzle to see the big picture.

the problem is that you haven't provided any of the pieces. you haven't identified a single gene that would be selected by natural selection and that would represent 1 step closer to form a modern.

uhm...look at the citations. Simply saying they don't exists won't make them go away.

leroy wrote:
Or each evolved independently for different purposes and later cot coopted for a different purpose. That is one of the points that those who champion Behe's credulous concept of irreducible complexity completely forget or outright ignore.

well prove it

Already done that.

leroy wrote:I am asking for examples of genetic changes that would be selected by natural selection, and that would represent a step closer towards modern eyes,

......Why do I even bother.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:55 pm
thenexttodie
Online
Posts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

@Nesslig Thank you for your reply. I did read your entire post. I'm just quoting a couple parts of it because I think it will bring us to the crux of the matter.

Nesslig20 wrote:As I pointed out, your argument still doesn't hold. Both eyes are found in both environments with direct and not direct sunlight. If the vertebrate eye is better equipped for the environment with direct sunlight, fish are in the wrong environment (as they are living with octopi) and snails have the wrong eyes (as they are living with terrestrial vertebrates like us).


Though fish do not live in direct sunlight, their eyes are wired to receive energy from usually either infrared or ultraviolet light. They see colors we don't. This should make them much more sensitive to the effects of damaging underwater sunlight than an octopus eye.

As for snails "having the wrong eyes", again, I think you are underestimating the metabolic power required to operate an acute vision system like what fish and humans have. What would be the point in putting humans eyes on a snail, if the snail is unable to generate enough power to gain any benefit them?




thenexttodie wrote:You were arguing that the human eyes are poorly designed when compared to mollusk eyes and thus is evidence of a homolical, evolutionary ancestary, refuting intelligent design.



Nesslig20 wrote: Wrong, I pointed out the pattern that different types of eye exhibits. Vertebrates (is a lineage of animals) with their unique type of eye that has a blind spot. Mollusks (a separate lineage) have their own eyes (of various stages of complexity) and cephalopods even have lensed that is superficially similar to that of the vertebrates, but their eyes still are the same type as that of other mollusks. All vertebrates have blindspot eyes, but no mollusk has that. The occurrence of structures with similar functions across different taxa, but still unique within each taxa, is the exact sort of hierarchal pattern that evolution via common descent would produce.

This above is evidence FOR evolution (without mentioning bad design at all), this below is evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no alternative explanation to this observation (other than the designer had this weird tendency to design life as an evolutionary hierarchy for no reason at all), and to make matters worse, the design of the eye in the lineage that include us (the vertebrates) have a embarrassingly bad design flaw - the blindspot. Which mollusks don't have. Form a engineering perspective, this doesn't make any sense at all.

It would be it would be impossible for a non-blind spot eye to function in any creature
dependent on blood to disperse oxygen throughout the body. There would always need to be somekind of hole where blood could enter.
Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:18 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3247Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:
leroy wrote:I am asking for examples of genetic changes that would be selected by natural selection, and that would represent a step closer towards modern eyes,

......Why do I even bother.


You bother for the fence sitters. A true believer will likely never have their mind changed, so one should never think about them. However, what you post can be helpful for people that are genuinely curious, and I for one still learn a lot from reading post like yours.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:25 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:.
Nesslig20 wrote:As I pointed out, your argument still doesn't hold. Both eyes are found in both environments with direct and not direct sunlight. If the vertebrate eye is better equipped for the environment with direct sunlight, fish are in the wrong environment (as they are living with octopi) and snails have the wrong eyes (as they are living with terrestrial vertebrates like us).

Though fish do not live in direct sunlight, their eyes are wired to receive energy from usually either infrared or ultraviolet light. They see colors we don't. This should make them much more sensitive to the effects of damaging underwater sunlight than an octopus eye.


I have looked up some things about the ultraviolet vision of fish and some important things that contradict your statement.
1. Not all fish have ultra violet vision nor infra red - some vision of fish are much like ours.
2. Ultra violet vision in fish is linked to mate selection - not with regard to the damaging effects of UV underwater.
3. Ultra violet light is absorbed quickly by water, thus UV isn't very damaging when you are under water.
4. Many animals can see the UV light, some live on land and some live underwater, even ones that are not fish nor any other vertebrate (meaning they have different eyes without the blindspot).

Your explanation that vertebrate eyes are better suited for handling direct light on land, still doesn't work with regard to animals with vertebrates that live under water.

Nesslig20 wrote:As for snails "having the wrong eyes", again, I think you are underestimating the metabolic power required to operate an acute vision system like what fish and humans have. What would be the point in putting humans eyes on a snail, if the snail is unable to generate enough power to gain any benefit them?


Did I say that snails should have human eyes. NO, I said they have the wrong eyes according to your argument that eyes with blindspots are better suited for living on land.

So why don't snails have blindspots?
Why do we have blindspots?

Or better formulated.
Why do ALL and ONLY vertebrates have eyes with blindspots?
(NOT rhetorical questions)

thenexttodie wrote:You were arguing that the human eyes are poorly designed when compared to mollusk eyes and thus is evidence of a homolical, evolutionary ancestary, refuting intelligent design.
Nesslig20 wrote: Wrong, I pointed out the pattern that different types of eye exhibits. Vertebrates (is a lineage of animals) with their unique type of eye that has a blind spot. Mollusks (a separate lineage) have their own eyes (of various stages of complexity) and cephalopods even have lensed that is superficially similar to that of the vertebrates, but their eyes still are the same type as that of other mollusks. All vertebrates have blindspot eyes, but no mollusk has that. The occurrence of structures with similar functions across different taxa, but still unique within each taxa, is the exact sort of hierarchal pattern that evolution via common descent would produce.

This above is evidence FOR evolution (without mentioning bad design at all), this below is evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no alternative explanation to this observation (other than the designer had this weird tendency to design life as an evolutionary hierarchy for no reason at all), and to make matters worse, the design of the eye in the lineage that include us (the vertebrates) have a embarrassingly bad design flaw - the blindspot. Which mollusks don't have. Form a engineering perspective, this doesn't make any sense at all.


It would be it would be impossible for a non-blind spot eye to function in any creature dependent on blood to disperse oxygen throughout the body. There would always need to be somekind of hole where blood could enter.


Disproved by the fact that there are animals with eyes that don't have a blindspot, yet are supplied by blood.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:13 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thenexttodie, WarK and 4 guests