Some questions about evolution.

[Archer]

How did sensory organs develop?

Just the eye for example? Can someone please explain to me in exacting detail how the eye developed?

Heck start off easy: do the ear?

I want exacting detail or nothing. I mean people believe in no divine guidance but I have yet to see empirical evidence of how the eye developed on its own. Sure different cells can form a symbiotic relationship but if nothing had eyes in the beginning how did they decide they was light? They never saw it.

So I suppose that vibrations were felt by cells and they decided to form the inner workings of the ear? Perhaps the first hearing apparatus were were similar to a diaphram that picked up noise? Where did the bone come from?

Make me a believer in the unguided development of life.

The bonus: how did brains develop?

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Exacting detail or nothing..."
"Make me a believer..."


Effort in futility.

 

[Magic Man]

How did sensory organs develop?

Just the eye for example? Can someone please explain to me in exacting detail how the eye developed?

Heck start off easy: do the ear?

I want exacting detail or nothing. I mean people believe in no divine guidance but I have yet to see empirical evidence of how the eye developed on its own. Sure different cells can form a symbiotic relationship but if nothing had eyes in the beginning how did they decide they was light? They never saw it.

So I suppose that vibrations were felt by cells and they decided to form the inner workings of the ear? Perhaps the first hearing apparatus were were similar to a diaphram that picked up noise? Where did the bone come from?

Make me a believer in the unguided development of life.

The bonus: how did brains develop?

You can read all about the evolution of the eye here. It has all the exacting detail you could want, and plenty of references, if you want to read further.

The general idea of how body parts evolved is that we started with some kind of rudimentary version, like in the case of eyes, photoreceptor proteins that can sense light. Over time, those rudimentary versions become more complex to be able to do more things and do them better.

If you want to know about any specific examples like the brain or ear or anything else, you can just Google them, and you'll find a wealth of information.

 

[Archer]

Read most of it before. Theories and good ones but I wanted someone here to explain it. The reason for this is that I personally think most believers in pure unguided development of components of the whole really have no clue what they believe.

I don't want a bunch of links I want it explained in the persons own words. Why should I debate with a link when the person posting it has not got a real clue what it says?

I am not saying you do not have a clue but explain it to me.

If you or others cant really completely understand the exacting science without quoting sources then do you really know what you are talking about. Do you?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

If I were truly searching for the answers to highly technical questions dealing with biology and genetics, the first place I'd go would be a message board full of amateurs.

-Nato

 

[Archer]

If I were truly searching for the answers to highly technical questions dealing with biology and genetics, the first place I'd go would be a message board full of amateurs.

-Nato

Well if one believes in something should they not understand it completely before criticizing others who believe in a creator? I mean really; many have a very good understanding of their religious texts and a much better understanding of what they believe that evolutionists.

 

[Tristesse]

Well if one believes in something should they not understand it completely before criticizing others who believe in a creator? I mean really; many have a very good understanding of their religious texts and a much better understanding of what they believe that evolutionists.

I suggest you talk with a biologist. However, what type of answer are you looking for? An answer of absolute certainty? Because thats not remotely how science operates.

 

[Magic Man]

Read most of it before. Theories and good ones but I wanted someone here to explain it. The reason for this is that I personally think most believers in pure unguided development of components of the whole really have no clue what they believe.

I don't want a bunch of links I want it explained in the persons own words. Why should I debate with a link when the person posting it has not got a real clue what it says?

I am not saying you do not have a clue but explain it to me.

If you or others cant really completely understand the exacting science without quoting sources then do you really know what you are talking about. Do you?

You don't have to get a degree in biology to understand the basics of evolution and why it makes sense. The basic idea that living organisms over time developed things like eyes that started out as very simple structures that did something basic like sense light, and eventually became more complex to the point of what we see today simply makes sense, and is a much more reasonable explanation, especially considering the evidence we have, than "god poofed us into existence exactly as we are".

If you want to debate the intricate details of the evolution of the eye or some other body part, you should get a degree in biology, and then debate with other biologists. If you want to simply debate whether evolution is a better explanation than creationism, then there's no need for me to describe all the details of how a specific body part evolved to what it is today.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I do not need complete and full technical knowledge of circuit theory to see that my computer works.
Nor do I need complete and full knowledge of the intricate development of sensory evolution to see that biological evolution as a whole works.

Changes in allele frequency over time in populations is a biological fact. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology can see this. Just as anyone with a basic understanding of circuitry would not call their computer a "magic box" powered by supernatural beings.

 

[Archer]

I suggest you talk with a biologist. However, what type of answer are you looking for? An answer of absolute certainty? Because thats not remotely how science operates.

Why can you not explain it top me? Don't you understand it? Can you meet the challenge or not. Redirection and side stepping are not backing up your side of this debate.

You don't have to get a degree in biology to understand the basics of evolution and why it makes sense. The basic idea that living organisms over time developed things like eyes that started out as very simple structures that did something basic like sense light, and eventually became more complex to the point of what we see today simply makes sense, and is a much more reasonable explanation, especially considering the evidence we have, than "god poofed us into existence exactly as we are".

If you want to debate the intricate details of the evolution of the eye or some other body part, you should get a degree in biology, and then debate with other biologists. If you want to simply debate whether evolution is a better explanation than creationism, then there's no need for me to describe all the details of how a specific body part evolved to what it is today.

So you don't understand it then. Is that what you are saying? Only a person trained in biology can truly grasp evolution yet you believe in it?

 

[Noaidi]

So you don't understand it then. Is that what you are saying? Only a person trained in biology can truly grasp evolution yet you believe in it?

I'm guessing you don't actually want a fully detailed explanation regarding sense organ development and function. You are wanting to know how much 'faith' we place in the scientific method and its discoveries, right?

 

[Archer]

I do not need complete and full technical knowledge of circuit theory to see that my computer works.
Nor do I need complete and full knowledge of the intricate development of sensory evolution to see that biological evolution as a whole works.

Changes in allele frequency over time in populations is a biological fact. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology can see this. Just as anyone with a basic understanding of circuitry would not call their computer a "magic box" powered by supernatural beings.

I was asking about the sensory organs and the brain. I know things change over time I am not denying that I am simply saying it is not just natural progression because of some of the intricacies involved that evolutionists don't even try to understand.

Blind faith. Sounds exactly what you accuse others of.

 

[lunakilo]

How about this...

If a creature has a mutation which makes slightly different from the rest of the creatures of that type, and this difference increases its chances of surviving long enough to have children, that mutation is passed on to its children.

Its children again has a higher probability of making it than the children of the creatures without the mutation. So slowly the chreatures without the mutation die off and the mutation becomes the norm.

An eye if usefull. Creatures with eyes can see preditors thus giving them the chance to escape leaving the blind creatures to be eaten. It also helps in localising food and mates.

So having an eye increases a creatures ability to survive, and any mutation which makes the eye better increases a creatures ability to survive.

One possible way an eye could evolve is this:

 

[Tristesse]

Why can you not explain it top me? Don't you understand it? Can you meet the challenge or not. Redirection and side stepping are not backing up your side of this debate.



So you don't understand it then. Is that what you are saying? Only a person trained in biology can truly grasp evolution yet you believe in it?

I'm directing you to the place to find the best answers. No side stepping at all. If I had a question about quantum mechanics, I don't go to my mechanic for an answer. I'll ask it again, what type of answer are you looking for?

 

[Archer]

I'm guessing you don't actually want a fully detailed explanation regarding sense organ development and function. You are wanting to know how much 'faith' we place in the scientific method and its discoveries, right?

No I really want to know; off the top of your head: Do you understand what you believe?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's really quite simple: species that developed eyes survived at a much higher rate than those without eyes. Sight and other senses help to prolong life by avoiding danger and hunting for food.

At the same time, sight is not the only factor in natural selection, but obviously it's critical because most animals have eyes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm guessing you don't actually want a fully detailed explanation regarding sense organ development and function. You are wanting to know how much 'faith' we place in the scientific method and its discoveries, right?

Blind faith. Sounds exactly what you accuse others of.

I would say Noaidi hit the bullseye on that one.

 

[Magic Man]

So you don't understand it then. Is that what you are saying? Only a person trained in biology can truly grasp evolution yet you believe in it?

I understand evolution. I just don't know all of the details, or else I'd be a biologist. Only a person trained in biology or evolution will know all of the little details of how everything evolved.

That knowledge is unnecessary to accept the theory. Having a general understanding of how it works is sufficient to be able to tell that it makes sense and is based on mountains of evidence, and trumps creationism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No I really want to know; off the top of your head: Do you understand what you believe?

Yep. Do you understand what I believe?

Let's talk theology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well if one believes in something should they not understand it completely before criticizing others who believe in a creator? I mean really; many have a very good understanding of their religious texts and a much better understanding of what they believe that evolutionists.

Not only do I understand the historicity of your bible as well as the quran....I also understand evolution. The difference is...religion can't be compared to the complexity of the ToE.

You asked for information in regards to the evolution of the eye. Someone gave you a link which you said you've read before yet you're not convinced. A technical right up is going to be far more in depth than what anyone can explain to you here. If you're not convinced by the link provided then you won't be convinced by an explanation given here by anyone which then begs the question....'what are your true intentions with this thread?'........