Evolution of the eye (reject, blood, verse, Zen)

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

if all of these parts are "necessary" for an eye to work, then why don't all eyes have them?

That's called a strawman. I never said all eyes must have all parts. I did say that I am very doubtful that all of the necessary parts could have come about together or mostly together. Obviously I'm talking about complicated versions of eyes that need all of their parts or most of them to work. I'm not volunteering to have any of my supporting systems removed or reduced thanks.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Why should an intelligent designer make an inferior eye? Sadly the most advanced eye on the planet belongs to a shrimp.

Another strawman. I said nothing about inferior or superor design. A shrimp eye would be overkill for us, and besides, who's to say that the designer isn't as stylish as he/she is intelligent? I don't want to gaze into the 'shrimp-eyes' of an otherwise lovely woman....

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

So someone obviously cut out an eye from the jellyfish, drilled a couple holes in our heads and plonked the eye right in there! That's why our eyes have eye-jelly!!!!

Is that what leaks out in the mornings? Eeww..

[Zeno]

Originally Posted by rocketman

The video is very good but incorrectly named. It reviews estimated lens development and little else. The eye is not a lens anymore than a car is a hubcap.

The point is that a mere photoreceptor cell in a simple organism provides an advantage and from there it is a step by step process over millions of years.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Zeno

The point is that a mere photoreceptor cell in a simple organism provides an advantage and from there it is a step by step process over millions of years. You are out of your league getting into the genetics here. You are strawmanning some intensely complicated genetics.

Zeno, look back earlier in this thread and you will see that Painted Wolf and I have already been using figures that came out of this guy (and his colleages) study. Let's not pretend that an eye is just a lens my friend. So yes, the film is incorrectly named. I also said it was very good. I also said earlier in this thread that I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that I find it all very hard to believe. For me, the entire eye and all of it's supporting systems including the very complex neural processing have to move reasonably all together or not at all. The genetic changes involved are HUGE. There's no survival advantage to significantly improving any single eye-component function without the rest of the system being able to use it.

The idea presented in the video that moving from a mere photoreceptor cell to a rudimentary eye-cup would somehow provide a sense of motion conveniently left out the thousands of adaptations that are required for a brain to be able to process such data and make meaningful use of it. That's the tip of a very big iceberg. The unseen aspect many forget is that the guessed-at gradualistic models require thousands of intermediate levels of optical system complexity along any one evolutionary pathway. Given that minor changes to the mechanisms of current sub-systems can render the entire system useless, I think it is quite reasonable to be doubtful about these guesses.

[Zeno]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Zeno, look back earlier in this thread and you will see that Painted Wolf and I have already been using figures that came out of this guy (and his colleages) study. Let's not pretend that an eye is just a lens my friend. So yes, the film is incorrectly named. I also said it was very good. I also said earlier in this thread that I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that I find it all very hard to believe. For me, the entire eye and all of it's supporting systems including the very complex neural processing have to move reasonably all together or not at all. The genetic changes involved are HUGE. There's no survival advantage to significantly improving any single eye-component function without the rest of the system being able to use it.

The idea presented in the video that moving from a mere photoreceptor cell to a rudimentary eye-cup would somehow provide a sense of motion conveniently left out the thousands of adaptations that are required for a brain to be able to process such data and make meaningful use of it. That's the tip of a very big iceberg. The unseen aspect many forget is that the guessed-at gradualistic models require thousands of intermediate levels of optical system complexity along any one evolutionary pathway. Given that minor changes to the mechanisms of current sub-systems can render the entire system useless, I think it is quite reasonable to be doubtful about these guesses.

I was aware that information was being used from the video. I just wanted to give a more direct link to it because I figured not everyone got a chance to watch it. And what I meant was that I understand the complexity of it all and think we have much to learn about all of our sensory systems.

I guess my frustration occurs because when an explanation is not deemed adequate, then a (stylish) designer is assumed to be the logical conclusion. You rule out the quest for knowledge. Why bother for a future study that could explain eye evolution one mutation at a time when one already knows that God did it.

Also, aren't the probabilities you derived from the mutation/generation estimates just a gut feeling?

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Zeno

You rule out the quest for knowledge.

I never said it didn't happen. I'm allowed to be doubtful. That's part of the quest for knowledge too.

Originally Posted by Zeno

Also, aren't the probabilities you derived from the mutation/generation estimates just a gut feeling?

I don't recall deriving any probabilities in a mathematical sense. If you are refering to the figures PW and I bantied about earlier you have to understand that they were derived from the paper written by the guy in your video. I would characterise them as his estimates, certainly. As for my concern about tinkering with sophisticated systems without wrecking them, no, that's common sense, not a gut feeling. I am simply unable to infer across such vast chasms of possibility as others seem to be able to do. That's probably because I am in the habit of questioning everything.

[Zeno]

Originally Posted by rocketman

I never said it didn't happen. I'm allowed to be doubtful. That's part of the quest for knowledge too.

I don't recall deriving any probabilities in a mathematical sense. If you are refering to the figures PW and I bantied about earlier you have to understand that they were derived from the paper written by the guy in your video. I would characterise them as his estimates, certainly. As for my concern about tinkering with sophisticated systems without wrecking them, no, that's common sense, not a gut feeling. I am simply unable to infer across such vast chasms of possibility as others seem to be able to do. That's probably because I am in the habit of questioning everything.

I wasn't questioning the mathematical estimates, and I know where they are from. I was referring to the more informal probability you were using like: "vast chasms of possibility" etc. In terms of millions of years, 350,000 doesn't leave me leaping across a vast chasm of possibility - in my own informal sense of probability.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Zeno

I wasn't questioning the mathematical estimates, and I know where they are from. I was referring to the more informal probability you were using like: "vast chasms of possibility" etc. In terms of millions of years, 350,000 doesn't leave me leaping across a vast chasm of possibility - in my own informal sense of probability.

Yeah, that's what it seems like to me. Perhaps it's a tiny one foot ditch to you., which is fair enough. I wish I could see it too.

As for your chuminess with the word 'probability' I'm not really implying any probability. I'm looking at the sophistication of the mechanisms and asking if it is possible for them to be altered and still able to be selectable.

I find it rather telling that you deleted this from post #33 "You are out of your league getting into the genetics here. You are strawmanning some intensely complicated genetics." evidentally after I quoted you. Luckily the quote is still there in post #34 so that I can be reminded that you are learning, as are we all. When someone shows me something like the lens movie that deals with the entire complex eye-system my doubts will be significantly lessened. That's fair enough isn't it, my fellow learner?

[Zeno]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Yeah, that's what it seems like to me. Perhaps it's a tiny one foot ditch to you., which is fair enough. I wish I could see it too.

As for your chuminess with the word 'probability' I'm not really implying any probability. I'm looking at the sophistication of the mechanisms and asking if it is possible for them to be altered and still able to be selectable.

I find it rather telling that you deleted this from post #33 "You are out of your league getting into the genetics here. You are strawmanning some intensely complicated genetics." evidentally by the time stamps it was after what I said in the following post. Luckily the quote is still there in post #34 so that I can be reminded that you are learning, as are we all. When someone shows me something like the lens movie that deals with the entire complex eye-system my doubts will be significantly lessened. That's fair enough isn't it, my fellow learner?

I made that edit before your response post. I'm not sure what timestamps you are looking at - my edit was at 4:15 and your post was at 4:32 on my clock. I felt it detracted from what I really wanted to discuss, and I didn't realize you would be responding so quickly as not to catch my edit.

Also, throwing around phrases like "vast chasms of possibility" implies probability to me. But thank you for clarifying.

Edit: I see your new edit got the timestamps straight, glad that's cleared up. Anyway, the reason why I had originally typed that was because I felt you were presenting the genetics unfairly. Most people are not versed in genetics, and context is important.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Zeno

I made that edit before your response post. I'm not sure what timestamps you are looking at - my edit was at 4:15 and your post was at 4:32 on my clock.

I think it's a problem of when we hit the "quote" button. I was doing other things for ages before I submitted. For a good example check out the difference between my last post and what your quote says. Lol, it's a comedy of errors.

Originally Posted by Zeno

I felt it detracted from what I really wanted to discuss, and I didn't realize you would be responding so quickly as not to catch my edit.

As you wish.

Originally Posted by Zeno

Also, throwing around phrases like "vast chasms of possibility" implies probability to me. But thank you for clarifying.

There is a big difference between the words possibility and probability, for those who know their meaning.

Thanks for the exchange Zeno.

edit: lol, it happened to us again! we're too fast for own good Zeno.