Can Evolutionists Answer These??

[nkt]

So imagine a fish that could tell when it was daytime, and when it wasn't. That fish could bask in the warm shallows just after dark, and not get eaten, with far more certainity than other fish. It wouldn't need any amazing eye, it would just need the energy boost from the heat of the sun's rays, and a small sensor that could detect light or dark. Not that complex, really, when compared to a leg or a lung.

Now consider that other fish and other animals get a similar effect. Some of them determine when something swims past, and they eat it, or get eaten by it. Selection pressure for an adaption to the eye is therefore strong, and eyes become quite rapidly more important, and more complex. Some animals, such as spiders, go with a massive array of eyes, all wired together. Squid go for a huge eye to detect light in the deep. Predators go for eyes that are twin, for good depth perception. Humans, with a huge brain, go for colour vision, and a pair of eyes that work together to ensure we can spot even the smallest thing at the length of our body. Once we shifted to being bipedal, selection for being able to focus sharply on the place we put our feet, which are, after all, not protected by hard hooves or nails, as well as allowing us to see far better what we were doing with our hands, which rapidly became more agile, as our brains got bigger and more complex.

Goldfish can see IR, but we can't. Hawks can see far smaller details than we can at higher resolution. The woodcock can see 360 degrees around itself. Our eyes can handle a lot of detail, but it uses a lot of shortcuts, tricks and various hardwired processing to reduce the load, and our eyes still trick us.

Our eyes are not evidence of anything special. Anyway, if it is evidence of some amazing creator, then who created the creator?

Edit: Erasmus00, well said!

[Fishteacher73]

One must also realize that so much of this "amazing complexity" is not in the eye. So much of the definition and interpretation is in the brain. I personally have done experiments testing eye and brain function in toads that exhibit the fact that although the basic structure of the eye is the same, the toad does not percieve the same visual image as a human does. This "complexity" that you want to attribute to the eye is simply not there.

[nkt]

Indeed, the neural networks in the toad's brain can only really determine things in a very limited way:

1. Small and moving - Food
2. Small and not moving - not food
3. Big and moving - Danger!
4. Big and not moving - trees and stuff

They have enough visual acuity to see things, but they don't have enough brains to know what they are looking at. A frog, if startled, will always automatically jump towards the darkest place it can see. It has no idea of what threats lie there, but evolution has taught it well enough that it is a wired in brain response now!

Anyone wanting to read a good book about evolution, that goes through many technical and difficult questions in a lively and clever way, should read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (

Amazon.com: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the...
Amazon.com: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the...

) It is a good read, but does get a bit sticky in the later chapters, as he kills off even the most obscure arguments of the "benign creator" theory and other twisted logics. The first half is a great novel, almost!

[Boerseun]

Debating the origins of the eye might seem to be strengthening the creationis case. However, the fact that their premise is even more absurd is not very often mentioned by them.

It might be comparable of the development of insect wings. You would assume that a half-baked non-working wing wouldn't just develop to be changed into a proper wing over thousands of generations. But it seems as if the first insects to develop rudimentary wings did so as thermal control mechanisms. It could have been in an ice age or something similar, where broad flat plates could be pointed towards the sun to quickly increase the insect's body temperature. It even developed muscles in the root so the insect can point it to the most advantageous position towards the sun. Modern day insects' wings are dead and dry structures, but for the first day or so of their lives there's actually blood flowing through the tiny veins in the wings, so it's a very plausible scenario.

And then, of course, an insect sitting in the top of a tree and trying to escape a predator, and jumping out of the tree, might find that these thermal regulators could be moved to have in influence on its path as it falls out of the tree.

Thus wings are born.

Wings and thermal regulators have nothing to do with each other, but this, to my mind, could very well be what happened. Something similar might have been the case with eyeballs, but it might not be so obvious as the above.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by nkt

So imagine a fish that could tell when it was daytime, and when it wasn't. That fish could bask in the warm shallows just after dark, and not get eaten, with far more certainity than other fish. It wouldn't need any amazing eye, it would just need the energy boost from the heat of the sun's rays, and a small sensor that could detect light or dark. Not that complex, really, when compared to a leg or a lung.

Now consider that other fish and other animals get a similar effect. Some of them determine when something swims past, and they eat it, or get eaten by it. Selection pressure for an adaption to the eye is therefore strong, and eyes become quite rapidly more important, and more complex. Some animals, such as spiders, go with a massive array of eyes, all wired together. Squid go for a huge eye to detect light in the deep. Predators go for eyes that are twin, for good depth perception. Humans, with a huge brain, go for colour vision, and a pair of eyes that work together to ensure we can spot even the smallest thing at the length of our body. Once we shifted to being bipedal, selection for being able to focus sharply on the place we put our feet, which are, after all, not protected by hard hooves or nails, as well as allowing us to see far better what we were doing with our hands, which rapidly became more agile, as our brains got bigger and more complex.

Goldfish can see IR, but we can't. Hawks can see far smaller details than we can at higher resolution. The woodcock can see 360 degrees around itself. Our eyes can handle a lot of detail, but it uses a lot of shortcuts, tricks and various hardwired processing to reduce the load, and our eyes still trick us.!

Since we can choose , I choose to have eyes like the woodcock. Is that all it takes for my children to get those kind of eyes? Maybe that explains Marty Feldman?

I can imagine a lot of things, that doesn't make them so EVEN if I can get others to agree it might be true...just ask Marshall Applewhite.

Originally Posted by nkt

Our eyes are not evidence of anything special. Anyway, if it is evidence of some amazing creator, then who created the creator?
Edit: Erasmus00, well said!

You just listed a number of reasons our eyes are special...even attributed them for humans having an even larger brain than before, not for reasons of vision but because of what eyes help us do.

No one created The Creator. The eye is evidence that evolution could not have happened as its adherents believe it did, it is not in and of itself THE evidence for a Creator.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Debating the origins of the eye might seem to be strengthening the creationis case. However, the fact that their premise is even more absurd is not very often mentioned by them.

It might be comparable of the development of insect wings. You would assume that a half-baked non-working wing wouldn't just develop to be changed into a proper wing over thousands of generations. But it seems as if the first insects to develop rudimentary wings did so as thermal control mechanisms. It could have been in an ice age or something similar, where broad flat plates could be pointed towards the sun to quickly increase the insect's body temperature. It even developed muscles in the root so the insect can point it to the most advantageous position towards the sun. Modern day insects' wings are dead and dry structures, but for the first day or so of their lives there's actually blood flowing through the tiny veins in the wings, so it's a very plausible scenario.

And then, of course, an insect sitting in the top of a tree and trying to escape a predator, and jumping out of the tree, might find that these thermal regulators could be moved to have in influence on its path as it falls out of the tree.

Thus wings are born.

Wings and thermal regulators have nothing to do with each other, but this, to my mind, could very well be what happened. Something similar might have been the case with eyeballs, but it might not be so obvious as the above.

For some reason when I read this I kept hearing Rod Serling's voice..."There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Evolution Zone."

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Debating the origins of the eye might seem to be strengthening the creationis case. However, the fact that their premise is even more absurd is not very often mentioned by them.

I find it amazing that you, Fish and nkt are discounting/disregarding what Darwin said. That is akin to a Muslim ignoring what Mohammed said, Buddhists ignoring what Buddha said or a Christian ignoring Christ's words. To do so though, for one of them, would mean that the rest of what those people said was null and void. Not so for evoluitonists???

It would appear that Darwin was more concerned with scientific integrity than the followers of the religion his book spawned are. Just a thought...

[pgrmdave]

I find it amazing that you, Fish and nkt are discounting/disregarding what Darwin said. That is akin to a Muslim ignoring what Mohammed said, Buddhists ignoring what Buddha said or a Christian ignoring Christ's words. To do so though, for one of them, would mean that the rest of what those people said was null and void. Not so for evoluitonists???

This isn't true in science. We don't need to doggedly hold onto the originator's idea just for the idea of it to be true. Scientific ideas reform themselves over time, as experiments are performed, and people learn more. Darwin's specific thoughts on evolution may not be correct even if the basic idea of it is.

[pgrmdave]

This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Evolution Zone

Yes!!! There is a lot of imagination done in a lot of science, my mind specifically wanders to Einstein's thought experiments, and one in which he imagined what someone would see if they were to be able to ride a beam of light. We cannot experiment with evolution without large populations, and unfortunately, fossils only record a very small percentage of a population so we need to interpret the data with what we have. It isn't perfect, but, it's logical, and it's better than saying "We can't explain it right now, so it must have been a god/aliens/a creator behind it." That is unscientific, and illogical.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Skippy

It would appear that Darwin was more concerned with scientific integrity than the followers of the religion his book spawned are. Just a thought...

I find it amazing that I pointed out to you how horribly dishonest your Darwin quote was. Even gave you a creationist reference that talks about it. And rather then respond to me, you ignore me and keep stating this nonsense. And then you accuse others of not having integrity?
-Will