EVOLUTION OF EYES (Long)

101 posts / 0 new

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 12:11

(Reply to #91) #92

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

Right, but the next step after theorizing, is hypothesizing, and evidence gathering. We've seen enough theorizing in the forum. What's the evidence to support it?

My evidence is very simple. Every time something changes in the eye, we encounter disease and disorders. Thus I must conclude we cannot change anything without running into disability and loss of function.

For example, achromatopsia - https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/achromatopsia

People with achromatopsia can be born without cone receptors. Keep in mind cone receptors are more specialized than rods, they detect specific wavelengths of light, aka color. Whereas rods are light-sensitive, not color sensitive. When Dawkins is talking about light-sensitive cells, I assume they resemble rods more than cones. So rods ought to be the foundation of vision, and cones a later adaptation. Great, so what happens to our vision without cones? First thing is obvious, we can't see color. But that's not all, rods are also more light-sensitive. When vision is left to them alone, we can't see during the day without the aid of squinting and sunglasses. Daylight is too bright, and it oversaturates the rods. Vision also looses acuity, so its blurry. Therefore, my conclusion is that removing cones is detrimental to vision, and we are left practically blind, thus vision is irreducible.

Its interesting that you mention embryonic development. We do know a lot about how the eye develops. In fact, one of the most interesting things is that it emerges from, and is considered to be a part of, the brain itself. So if vision evolved from light-sensitive proteins, then I must assume the brain evolved from vision since the two go hand-in-hand. But wait that doesn't make sense, because many animals don't have vision, but have brains. Secondly, the brain is highly linked to movement not vision. In fact, I've seen evolutionists point to the jellyfish, which just has a net of neurons and no central nervous system, as an analogy of how the brain evolved. Again, brain equals movement control, not vision.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 13:17

(Reply to #92) #93

LucyAustralopithecus

Well that is very sketchy

Well that is very sketchy evidence to be honest, but it is a starting point for you I would suppose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia#Cause

There seems from here to be more then one cause for this condition, So we cannot limit the conclusion to one claim.
This is just from a very quick search but if I have a moment free I may look into this and similar conditions.

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Sensory_-_Vision...

And this paper appears to suggest the process well,

http://education.med.nyu.edu/courses/macrostructure/lectures/lec_images/...

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 13:52

(Reply to #93) #94

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

I don't see what's sketchy

I don't see what's sketchy about it. The causes do not matter in this discussion, because what matter are the symptoms. As a rule of thumb, no single neurological problem has a single cause. For example, Aphasia is the inability to produce or understand speech (i.e. Broca's aphasia). It doesn't matter how the damage is done to that area of the brain, whether its via a stroke, a car accident, a genetic problem, even malnutrition, as long as there is damage to that area you'll have aphasia.

Same with achromatopsia, it doesn't matter how you ended up losing function in the cones of your retina, but as long as you did you'll have the disorder. My proposal doesn't hinge on the cause, but on the effects. You can't lose your cones and not suffer visual problems.

*I'm not sure what I'm supposed to look at in your embryology links. They state what I state but in more detail.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 14:23

#95

LucyAustralopithecus

I think with the heavy amount

I think with the heavy amount of evidence pointing to evolutionary progression is requires some very strong evidence (which was why I asked if there was anything peer reviewed that you could offer for analysis).
The main reason is most good journals also allow for links to critical papers in rebuttal, so its a very useful tool in order to build an opinion, in other words I could see your point, then se critical review and then see the rebuttal from authors of original paper.

As I've said this is not my area, but we need something to go on to start building an understanding.

At the moment I would love to agree with you entirely, but I can only go by what I know, which is a few very nice point of view from you. But also a huge quantity of evidence from biological evolution which has been long established and thoroughly tested.

*The embryology was simple to establish that the eye can form from a very simple based system to what we could call an eye within 9 months of pregnancy. More of a side note then an argument. Just wondered if it a point of agreement.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 15:06

(Reply to #95) #96

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

Right, but this is not a

Right, but this is not a difficult concept. Without cones, ours eyes are a mess. Without a lens our eyes a mess. Without ciliary muscles our eyes are a mess. Without a blood supply our eyes are a mess. Without bipolar, amacrine, horizontal and ganglion cells, our eyes are a mess. Without a sclera our eyes are a mess. Without the intraocular pressure being balanced, our eyes are a mess. The list goes on and on and on and on. You can't take parts away from the eye without beginning to lose functionality.

If you can, then give me some examples, and I mean real examples, not theoretical ones. Heavy amounts of evidence? Then at least give me one. I'll make it easier on you. I don't believe we evolved, but I'll pretend we did. Do you have a preserved eye from Homo erectus or Austrolopithecus to back up your claim? A fossilized one?

Even Dawkins understands you lose function when you tamper with the eye. His whole argument is that it doesn't matter if you're half-blind, can't see during the day, and your vision is a blur at night. To be cross-eyed is better that to have no eyes at all.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 15:18

#97

LucyAustralopithecus

i think we are getting mixed

i think we are getting mixed up here, i am not refuting your claims my dear, i am just asking questions lol. when i have shared a link it is more to see if this is the direction of what you mean because you haven't shared anything for me to investigate and to simply trust a persons word is intellectually dishonest.

i have shared links in the hope you can say, yes read more of this or no, try this lol.

I have nooooo idea about this subject, the only thing i have asserted is just the embryology point which was simply to see if it was a basis for understanding that from something very basic and simple, something complex can come to pass.

Still all i can go on, is what the bulk of evidence leads to.

Please feel free to share anything you like.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 15:40

(Reply to #97) #98

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

I see. Its hard for me to

I see. Its hard for me to give you peer-reviewed articles from a database because their purpose isn't to explain the disorders that I'm mentioning. They may explain pertinent details in the introduction, but their goal is to communicate specific findings that I'm not interesting in. They're boring. Googling the disorder as you did is far better.

For example: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/doi/10.1002/humu.2331... (See attachment if you don't have access).

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?:

Yes

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 15:49

#99

LucyAustralopithecus

thank you so much, i have

thank you so much, i have just read this and its interesting. i will search for my information and gain a better understanding. good luck with your studies, what are your goals for when you finish?

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 16:33

(Reply to #99) #100

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

Right now all my classes have

Right now all my classes have been cancelled till next Tuesday because of the hurricane. That's why I've had all this free time to argue with people lol.

Fri, 09/08/2017 - 16:50

#101

Randomhero1982

Oh no, well I hope you are

Arguement are good bud, as long as people are not ignorant of facts.

On another site I have argued all night, someone asserted the universe is shaped like a torus and finite... fuck me

And flat earthers..... jeeeeez! Come on...

Hope all is well in the states, looks bad.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?:

Pages