Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by PBE6
Who said life was easy? But you're forgetting that it's actually even harder to create progeny once you've fallen apart.

No I'm not forgetting that, I actually feel that is why we see the
variety we see today. It is either because positive changes have
occurred making life more complex and over time this caused
splits so that life diversified, or negative changes occurred over
time and caused life to diversify, or both. I see more things
wearing down than I do see them getting more complex so it
stands to reason for me any way that makes more sense looking
at the universe around us.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But you didn't answer his questions. You just don't want to, or you just cannot. Perhaps you are afraid to answer, because that will show how little you know, even if you pretend you know. But you cannot fool everyone.

The questions was:

[b]Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim? [/b]

I gave you a reason for everything wearing down that would include
the eye.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I gave you a reason for everything wearing down that would include
the eye.
Kelly

But still no answer to the

Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?

A "I don't know" would suffice... 😏

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If a living thing was “degraded” or “falling apart” then it would be much less likely to pass on its genes because natural selection would select against it! Therefore, natural selection would select those individuals that are not “degraded” or “falling apart” and those genes that they carry that don’t give any harmful effect would be passed on to th ...[text shortened]... n’t evolve to be less able to survive by being “degraded” because that wouldn’t make much sense.

Natural selection keeps all life going that is suited for the enviroment
it is in. If you have a split in a species why would one have to die off if
both are well suited to live on? That would be true if life is getting
better over time or worse would it not?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a special event, the creation story I believe to be true had
mankind living forever until the fall, after the fall man still lived to be
hundreds of years old. After time our lives became shorter as our
lives degraded, I also believe that many of the species we see today
are because all life started falling into natural selection and after t ...[text shortened]... ends itself to explain why fossils appear the way they do,
but not the way we date them.
Kelly

Back to the same old rusty tale from two religions older than christianity.
BTW, dogs came from wolves. Early man domesticated them by attracting them to their camps with scraps of food till they got acclimated to humans and then became friends.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are talking about design not evolution if you are going to use
the word useful, there are no worries of usefulness in a mutation in
DNA. You want to use the word useful or beneicial as if there is a care
if a mutation is going to allow for that you are walking towards design.
Natural selection acts after the mutation, it does not cause them, or
picks what one should come next.

I'm going to give this another shot, KellyJay.

1) What explanation can you offer for why the eye underwent a physiological
change in which the retina moves behind the nerve fibers rather than remaining
in front of it and thus creating a blind spot?

2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I gave you a reason for everything wearing down that would include
the eye.

The eye didn't wear down. You claim entails that it underwent a physiological change.

The octopus' eye is essentially identical to the human eye except that the nerve fibers that
transmit information to the brain are behind rather than in front of the retina.

This results in the octupus' not having a blind spot.

Having a blind spot makes the human eye less than ideally suited for the purpose of seeing.

So, your contention is not that the eye deteriorated, but that the nerve fibers moved from behind
the retina to in front of it. It's a lateral move physiologically -- equally complicated. It is
a backwards step visually -- gives the individual a blind spot.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see more things wearing down than I do see them getting more complex so it stands to reason for me any way that makes more sense looking at the universe around us.
Kelly

I have seen that claim in these forums before. Was it you the last time? I cant remember.

Can you back it up? Or is it just a 'feeling'?

Do these things you see wearing down do so quickly? Is complexity measurable? Could we for example lock a room for 24 hours then measure how much complexity has been 'worn down' or lost during that period? Is the world as a whole getting less complex all the time? If the world is millions of years old, then why isn't it a smooth ball like a marble (very uncomplex)?
At a minimum, the speed of 'wearing down' must be pretty rapid for you to have observed it within your life time.

Have you considered the possibility that it is an illusion? Consider the following: most man made objects take a very short period to make and very long periods to be 'worn down'. The same applies to most natural objects. Maybe you are observing the wearing down more not because it happens more often but because it happens over a longer period.

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.

That's because you've never tried to live in the dark 100% of the time for generations.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They are all flawed, how do you know that?
Kelly

Because I looked at them and analyzed them! What do you mean how do I know that?!

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I'm not forgetting that, I actually feel that is why we see the
variety we see today. It is either because positive changes have
occurred making life more complex and over time this caused
splits so that life diversified, or negative changes occurred over
time and caused life to diversify, or both. I see more things
wearing down than I do see them g ...[text shortened]... tands to reason for me any way that makes more sense looking
at the universe around us.
Kelly

You should really read this article (entitled "Devolution (biological fallacy)" ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection keeps all life going that is suited for the enviroment
it is in. If you have a split in a species why would one have to die off if
both are well suited to live on? That would be true if life is getting
better over time or worse would it not?
Kelly

… Natural selection keeps all life going that is suited for the environment
it is in.…

Correct -but is often does more than that -it often makes a species BETTER suited for the changing/new environment it is in and not keeping it merely “suited”.

…If you have a split in a species why would one have to die off if
both are well suited to live on?.…

Because a species split generally occurs when two populations of the same species are in DIFFERENT environments which require different adaptations for optimum survival.

For example, a population of birds may get established on an island with no predators and no advantage to having flight wings and in fact having flight wings is a burden! (because, for example, large wings just get in the way when running after insect pray in dense undergrowth etc)-while the rest of the species are established elsewhere where there are predators and a big advantage to having flight wings.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think natural selection causes specific mutations to occur?
Kelly

No. -where did you get that idea from?

What do you think I meant when I said:
“Nobody is suggesting that it is not the case that “natural selection acts after the mutation” ” ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I just made this up, what are you talking about?
Kelly

What you “just made up” is the implied suggestion that Nemesio does not believe:
“natural selection acts after the mutation”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What you “just made up” is the implied suggestion that Nemesio does not believe:
“natural selection acts after the mutation”

You are saying natural selection acts before mutations?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Natural selection keeps all life going that is suited for the environment
it is in.…

Correct -but is often does more than that -it often makes a species BETTER suited for the changing/new environment it is in and not keeping it merely “suited”.

…If you have a split in a species why would one have to die off if
both are well suit ...[text shortened]... are established elsewhere where there are predators and a big advantage to having flight wings.

"Correct -but is often does more than that -it often makes a species BETTER suited for the changing/new environment it is in and not keeping it merely “suited”. "

[/b]Nope impossible, you can filter out what can live in an environment
by killing off what isn’t suited for it, but you do not get to say it is
playing an active roll in the mutation process for improvement! The
filtering process is an after the fact process, it plays no part in the
process itself outside of making sure nothing that cannot make it
that does not have what it takes to live and move on. That does not
mean all mutations going forward will be good or bad, they all stand
on their own merit without a goal or desire to make things better or
worse.

Mutations again do not have a plan, a purpose, or design to them
they are not there to make things better or worse they simply are
what they are. You seem to want to infuse into the process a goal
of sorts where none can exist because their is a filter screening life
in natural seleciton.

That is like saying a testing process to show defects causes better
designed parts. It only filters out bad parts UNLESS there is some
design going on, because unless there is a connection of learning
what is good or bad and an goal to more forward with only the good
not the bad there isn't any learning taking place and repeated errors
will just continue over and over again. With life you do not get to
many of those either, because more mutations can be harmful than
can be helpful too, ending a species can be easier than improving
one.
Kelly