Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by Penguin
An interesting proposition KJ, do you have any evidence to support it?

As far as I am aware, no cases have been found of life forms becoming less complex through time, as I think you are suggesting.

Is there any evidence of eyesight being better in the distant past than it is now? Were eyes 'built' the other way round without nerves obscuring the light ...[text shortened]... ng? Can anyone think of any evidence from the real world that would support it?

--- Penguin

I nipped onto the "Slightly biased attempt to discredit evolution" thread and realised that KJ had already suggested this in that thread.

I think this is a hypothesis that KJ has just heard / dreamed up and is plugging it wherever he can. Nothing wrong with that per se but maybe we should keep it in the 'slightly...' thread, or make a new thread that explicitely deals with it rather than trying to slide it in through the back door.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I nipped onto the "Slightly biased attempt to discredit evolution" thread and realised that KJ had already suggested this in that thread.

I think this is a hypothesis that KJ has just heard / dreamed up and is plugging it wherever he can. Nothing wrong with that per se but maybe we should keep it in the 'slightly...' thread, or make a new thread that expl ...[text shortened]... itely deals with it rather than trying to slide it in through the back door.

--- Penguin.

There are animals alive today that have regressed evolutionarily speaking. Like salamanders in dark caves, they lost their eyes after thousands or millions of years living in those dark caves.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The start of the eye.
Kelly

Define "eye" please.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How can an argument be false, because you disagree with it? You and
a few other here, I enjoy debating I don't mind a little insult from time
to time it can highlight a point, it is the non-stop insults without
addressing points that get to me. There are a few posters here who do
not add to the discussion outside of their attack on those that
disagree ...[text shortened]... times or worse....make me wish I had
thought a little longer about what I did say. 🙂
Kelly

How can an argument be false, because you disagree with it?

It can be false if it's not logical. What do you mean how can it be false?!

Originally posted by Nemesio
How about the fact that an octopus' eye is a better evolved eye than a vertebrate's one? Wouldn't
an intelligent designer use the best eye he made for his prize creation, humankind?

While it is unsurprising -- given the advantage that the eye has over the unsighted in terms of
survival -- the idea that it evolved independently is just totally awesome to me.

Nemesio

"Better evolved" is not a scientific concept. What do you mean?

Originally posted by KellyJay
DNA is a code correct, filled with information? It is put together in
such a way that we can figure out all the correct amount of data
points required to write it properly, just as we can look at a book,
and count the letters, the words, or the paragraphs in it. With that
information we can see the odds of getting that code written as we
can lookin ...[text shortened]... fore we start flipping the
cards over to see if we called out the right sequence or not.
Kelly[/b]

That's not true. I have looked at a number of such mathematical analyses and they are all flawed. Would you like to offer one up for us?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As FabianFnas pointed out and as I brought up in another thread
this could be explained by life breaking down too, splitting into
simplier forms over time as well. You seem to only look at it as
building up to more complex systems over time when it could
be breaking down into simplier life forms over time too.
Kelly

Are you suggesting that the eye was better when God first created it and subsequently evolved
to become inferior?

Nemesio

Originally posted by sonhouse
There are animals alive today that have regressed evolutionarily speaking. Like salamanders in dark caves, they lost their eyes after thousands or millions of years living in those dark caves.

That's not regression. Why waste space and genetic information and nerves and stuff on eyes when there's no light anyway?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not regression. Why waste space and genetic information and nerves and stuff on eyes when there's no light anyway?

To say nothing of the energy requirements, but it has adapted to its new environ by losing its eyes. It seems to have gone backwards to me.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you suggesting that the eye was better when God first created it and subsequently evolved
to become inferior?

Nemesio

Yes, the whole human race was better when man was created than
it is now.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Please, don't misinterpret my words, KJ. Don't even refer to my words to prove your story. Creation by an intelligent being is downright wrong.

If we have a devolution in human eys, doesn't this prove that your gods hand is not even near the creation of man life or anything? And as I said, 30 thousands of years, not 6000 years as the black book with th ...[text shortened]... a lot more about the anatomy of the eye, human eyes in particular, and evolution in general.

If you do not want quoted, do not write.

I did not infer your words to anything that has to do with creation, I
refered your words to that which you spoke about. I did not add to
or twist what you said, quite unlike what you just did to me by saying
I refered your words to creation.
not

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Have you read these, …

Yes -some are interesting.

…and these do not give you pause over the
evolution of the eye? . . .…

“pause”? do you mean “doubt“? -if so, the answer is no -why should they make me doubt?[/b]

I'll bring up the points I'd like your opinion about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, the whole human race was better when man was created than
it is now.
Kelly

You mean like Neandertals and Australapithicus and Homo Habilis? The original men? They were superior to us?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not true. I have looked at a number of such mathematical analyses and they are all flawed. Would you like to offer one up for us?

They are all flawed, how do you know that?
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
To say nothing of the energy requirements, but it has adapted to its new environ by losing its eyes. It seems to have gone backwards to me.

Is it fair to say it is easier to lose something you have than to get
something new like an eye?
Kelly