I want to kick a dead horse here. I'm aware none of you have answers, and get upset about it. But for those of you who enjoy problems and thinking of solutions instead of regurgitating Dawkins, here are two more issues the eye needs to solve during its evolution:
1. Size Constancy: When you study the eye you come to realize that photoreceptors are the least interesting part of the visual system, and the real work goes on behind the scenes. You can begin to understand why with problem. A certain ball at a specific distance produces an image on the retina. If the ball becomes larger, the image on the retina also becomes larger. However, if the size doesn't change but the ball gets closer, the image becomes larger as well. The brain keeps the image constant despite its changing retinal size.
2. Shape Constancy: Same concept as above, except we focus on shape. Two things need to be correlated: the objects actual shape, and the shape of the object on the retina as it slants and changes direction. You still perceive a book as a rectangle, even if the image on the retina is a square or a trapezoid.
Without size constancy, an animal would run away at the sight of a nearby mosquito, because it looks giant on the retinal image; but it might not run away at the sight of a predator in the distance because it appears small. Likewise without shape constancy, you wouldn't be able to recognize a predator at all, since the shape would shift and morph aimlessly without reason.
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You should be more humble when trying to understand God's perfect intelligent design; we mortals aren't allowed to understand His infallible misterious ways.
John
Your right about people at the forum not having all the answers, we are not biologist. What is your obsession about disproving evolution ? Even if you disprove evolution, that hasn't proven a god exist or created life on earth.
Only an atheist would think anyone is trying to prove God by disproving evolution, smh. I've been taught that ignorance is never an excuse, but for you to make excuses for your ignorance reaches a new level of self-preservation.
"Only an atheist would think anyone is trying to prove God by disproving evolution"
I've heard religious apologists make this assertion many times, I don't believe I've ever heard an atheist make it. The two are not interdependent, evolution is a scientific fact, explained by a vast and overwhelmingly evidenced scientific theory. Atheism is simply the absence of theism, which is a belief that a deity or deities exist. My atheism is not dependant on evolution, though clearly evolution raises plenty of problems for religious texts that make no mention of it in their explanation of the origins species. In the almost incomprehensible case that evolution were scientifically reversed tomorrow I'd still be an atheist as I see no evidence commensurate to the claim that a deity exists.
I don't care. Go find someone that is making that assertion and complain to them about it.
"I don't care. Go find someone that is making that assertion and complain to them about it"
It was your claim that someone had made that assertion, indeed you implied atheists (plural) make it. I don't particularly care whether you care or not to be honest, it;s your dead duck thread and I was trying to offer something salient, which is more than you appear to be doing. I'll happily bow out in that case, enjoy.
Someone made an incorrect assertion, and you want to waste my time explaining why their incorrect assertion is correct. That makes two atheists that are backing up the same wrong assertion.
So I stand by my comment. Go find someone that is making that assertion and complain to them about it.
@Sheldon, this @Breezy is as bad atheist as I'm a bad believer...
Creationism is fallacious nonsense, breezy. Get over it.
Keith said it so it must be so.
They say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but sarcasm is another. If you descend to that, Breezy, you undermine your own arguments.
Sarcasm is meant to undermine the listener's argument, not the speakers. That's literally its only purpose. To eloquently use irony for the sake of mocking.
You obviously don't understand the meanings of sarcasm and irony. Look them up on the internet - it's easy enough. And, by the way, whatever the intent , sarcasm always rebounds on the user.
Also your understanding of the word 'eloquent' seems a bit shaky too.
"Sarcasm is meant to undermine the listener's argument, not the speakers. That's literally its only purpose. To eloquently use irony for the sake of mocking.
Then you failed, as you'd have had to combine sarcasm with something beyond pure ad hominem. You simply insulted someone, and said nothing about why you thought their post was erroneous. His claim was factually correct as well, creationism is both fallacious and nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence for it, and the claims prominent creationist make are cringeworthy. It always amazes me they're not embarrassed. Ray Comfort's banana argument is one of my all time favourites. if I could have stopped laughing I'd have been embarrassed for him.
https://youtu.be/Igui2YoHXs8
Enjoy....I wonder If Ray Comfort has ever seen a coconut? Or knows that Bananas have been selectively bread by humans. Wild bananas look like this:
https://dokmaidogma.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/musa-forest-banana-72.jp...
Creationists, you have to laugh...
How is how the eye processes shapes and sizes an obstacle to evolution? I don't understand
That's explained in the last paragraph of the OP.
No it isn't. That is why I asked the question
"Without size constancy, an animal would run away at the sight of a nearby mosquito, because it looks giant on the retinal image; but it might not run away at the sight of a predator in the distance because it appears small. Likewise without shape constancy, you wouldn't be able to recognize a predator at all, since the shape would shift and morph aimlessly without reason."
"How is how the eye processes shapes and sizes an obstacle to evolution? I don't understand"
It's not, this is the woeful "irreducible complexity" argument that creationists refuse to accept has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, often because they have an execrable grasp of evolution and science, but quite often because the creationist lobby are thoroughly dishonest.
All I did was state facts and ask how they evolved. Spend your energy providing an answer. Not looking for excuses to avoid doing so.
Thank you. I had no idea what the the original post meant. I appreciate the honest response.
The eye evolved like all else stage by stage, What is more every stage of that evolution can be see in different species right now, from a small collections of light detecting cells on the skin to detect light and shadow and thus avoid predators, to the complete eye in multiple species. There are no obstacles to the evolution of the human eye, none. However if you feel you have some legitimate reasons to reverse this current scientific positions I'd suggest you publish them and get them peer reviewed, if you falsify species evolution you'd be the most famous scientist whoever lived, replete with Nobel prize of course.
Though I'm always suspicious when people choose an atheist forum to make claims about scientific facts like evolution that obviously contradict the current consensus of the entire field of biology. I just don't see what this has to do with atheism to be honest.
Breezy and I have had problems in the past. Sadly, he has not changed
It just seems silly / pointless to demand scientific answers on a non scientific forum. Like me going onto a jam making forum and insisting they explain the evolution of fruit, then shouting aha as if I've caught them out.
John may spank you for saying that, Sheldon, if he decides to be consistent.
Oooo! Would he spank me too?? I mean, it's quite expensive to fly across the Atlantic, but it might be worth it, you never know.
Ahh you're right. I suppose its similar to going on a thread about the evolution of the eye, and posting irrelevant comments about the definition of sarcasm, about what you've heard apologists say, about irreducible complexity and creationists lobby, and metaphors about jam making forums.
Right?
And who was it, John, who started posting irrelevant comments?
"Ahh you're right. I suppose its similar to going on a thread about the evolution of the eye, and posting irrelevant comments about the definition of sarcasm, about what you've heard apologists say, about irreducible complexity and creationists lobby, and metaphors about jam making forums.
Right?"
No, not really, but I'm disinclined to explain your error to you as I am starting to suspect you;re simply trolling. As I said if you think the scientific theory of evolution has flaws you should publish your 'fascinating' ideas, when they're peer reviewed and you collect your Nobel prize won't we all look silly.
Time for food, good evening everyone.
The beauty of language is that it uses a handful of rules and sounds, to produce an infinite array of sentences. Yet I don't know how many times I've heard atheists repeat the same arguments, almost as if reading off a script. I've been told to publish my ideas if I think I'm so smart, about a dozen times on this thread.
I literally feel like I'm in WestWorld sometimes, and everyone here is a host regurgitating the same scripted lines, while fully convinced they are clever and original thoughts.
I find the Nobel Prize argument particularly interesting. It goes to show atheism is just one giant appeal to authority.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Pages