Are humans special

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
That's better!

That's better!

Your objections to evolution, not a stumbling for evolution.

Go with that in any future posts you make regarding lines of thought, such as the threads you asked me to read.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
No

No

LogicFTW's picture
Even with 90% of bodies lost

Even with 90% of bodies lost due to soft tissue, the remaining 10% supplies an overwhelming amount of evidence. And in the case where we can examine soft tissue, like bodies trapped in tar pits, or amber, or ice etc, the few times we have this soft tissue, we again see more supporting evidence to the premises of evolution.

Cool thing to is: we can do experiments with very short reproduction cycle living things and see evolution happen in the course of months/years instead of thousands of years. Like fruit flies, virus mutations, and other short reproduction cycle living things.

David Killens's picture
@ John 61X Breezy

@ John 61X Breezy

You are making a special plea. Evolution does apply everywhere, just like the laws of gravity.

Your argument falls flat when you can't answer, so you resort to special pleading.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
What are you taking about?

What are you taking about?

Sky Pilot's picture
TheBlindWatchmaker,

TheBlindWatchmaker,

Our ancestors were fish. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2523249/Did-humans-descen.... And like halibut our eyes moved from the sides of our distant predatory ancestors' heads to the front of our faces in order to help us cope with our environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halibut

Sheldon's picture
Are these views reflected by

Are these views reflected by the scientific world? I think we know the answer here of course, and science is basing it's acceptance of species evolution on facts and evidence, whereas your objections despite your lame and dishonest straw god fallacy nonsense are motivated by your religious beliefs.

This fact is easily confirmed by flipping on a news channel, and we can see that despite the endless propaganda by religions and creationism species evolution remains a scientific fact.

Get your objections published and peer reviewed, collect your Nobel prize, and your papal Knighthood of course, who knows maybe even beatification, and then I'll accept your objections might have some scientific validity.

A good start would be for you to learn to give candid answers to questions, or even to acknowledge questions, that you don't find awkward to answer.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Nnannanaananana Shel-don *pow, BAM, Thunk Kerpfuzz!* Love it Sheldon, spot on.

Armando Perez's picture
I do not understand what is

I do not understand what is the problem with the evolution of vision. When people mention ancestors in this context they should not be not referring even to mammals or fish but to much older organisms as vision started from unicelulars as the ability to detect shadow and light. Just that was enough to confer and advantage so it was retained. Any other refinement (independently of how it was achieved) was an added advantage to survival so it would have been selected. The ability to detect movement and identify if it was prey or predator would have been highly beneficial so it would have had a strong value for selection. Any improvement, no matter how small would have been a massive survival advantage. I do not know why that would be an obstacle to evolution. The mechanism we see today to achieve motion detection probably evolved from simpler ones and id not happen overnight.

In fact, some scientists think that the eye evolved more than once, as it was such a great advantage.

http://changelog.ca/quote/2011/10/30/eyes_evolved_multiple_times_but_hav...

In invertebrates there is long evolutionary story , whereby an intracellular organelle passes into a unicellular and then a multicellular eye, attaining by trial and error, along different routes an ever-increasing degree of complexity.

Itseems that is has been more diffcult to find that detailed sequence in vertebrates, but it just indicate that we do to have enough fossil information. On the other hand, the existence now days of species showing all levels of eye development is a strong indicator about how the most complex eyes of today could came to be.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I have to echo your

I have to echo your sentiments here, I do not see any issue with the evolution of the eye.

In previous posts I have tried to elude to this, but I think this issue is that there are some people who think homo sapiens evolved only from a primate lineage.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
When you say you don't

When you say you don't understand the problem with the evolution of the eye do you say that in general, or in reference to my linked threads on the subject?

Give me your narrative of how the eye evolved and I'll tell you why I think it's problematic.

Sheldon's picture
"Give me your narrative of

"Give me your narrative of how the eye evolved and I'll tell you why >*I*< think it's problematic."

That's your problem, why should anyone care why your religious beliefs prompt you to think it's problematic when the entire scientific world does not? And before you claim your beliefs are irrelevant, we know your objections are not scientific else you could publish them and the wider scientific world would agree, and falsify evolution. The only objections are from religious people.

CyberLN's picture
John, you wrote, “Give me

John, you wrote, “Give me your narrative of how the eye evolved and I'll tell you why I think it's problematic.”

First, it would probably be beneficial for you to define ‘eye’ and designate, based on the definition, which living things’ eyes you want a narrative about. There is just way too much diversity in what could be called an eye for you to call for someone’s narrative.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Nope, I'm not going to define

Nope, I'm not going to define or restrict anything. I'm simply interested in whatever he had in mind when he said he didn't see any problems with the evolution of vision. Thanks for your suggestion.

LogicFTW's picture
@Breezy

@Breezy

Give me your narrative of how the eye evolved and I'll tell you why I think it's problematic.

Eh, I am bored, so I will bite.

TLDR: evolution over time in response to available information from energy, (specifically the type of energy we call light for eyes.)

The eyes, like any other grouping of cells perform a specific function. In most animal and human terms we call these specialized groupings of cells: sensory organs. Sensory organs can be defined by a grouping of cells that are sensitive to a form of energy and can convert that energy into information to be processed by another specific organization of cells with that function (the brain/central nervous system.)

Early in the evolutionary cycle of progress, the skin organ cells that shielded and contained the more vulnerable cells contained within, through its direct contact of various forms of energy bombarding it, that by pure evolutionary chance with untold trillions of tries every second, that if the same already in place muscle organisms that facilitated movement, digestion, and circulation, worked to move away from the entire organism away from the side that was suffering cell damage/death. Thus the ability for the entire organism to survive, consume and reproduce was increased, allowing that type of organism to gain advantage in a limited resource and dangerous environment. The first, crudest form of sense was formed. (A very crude sense of touch based on cellular damage ultimately derived from energy of electron resistance or excitement when in close contact.)

Organisms skin or outer protective layer that is bombarded with all types of energy form the basis of all sensory organs, organs that in turn can send data to the central nervous system so the entire organism can react.

Fast forward to eyes. In organisms that are exposed to varying levels of energy we refer to light, (not deep in the oceans or ground.) The crudest form probably begins with cellular damage of the skin/shell organ when exposed to excessively high amounts of this light energy compared to normal. The skin was built and adapted to one type of light energy range, and when that changes enough the skin gets damaged at rates it was not designed for. Skin that is lighter and more translucent gets more readily damaged by this energy then thicker, darker, less translucent as the energy cannot pass through as readily. Much like the first crudest senses of touch, the central nervous system can react and move away from this damage. For a crude organism that lacks the ability to regulate its temperature, having an organ that can at this crudest form, sense this type of energy and move towards or away from it can again mean a large advantage in success in the evolutionary process.

Given many many years of evolution, specialized areas of skin that are particular sensitive to this form of energy can develop, a light sensitive organ that can do more then just detect large differences in the rate of light energy hits it and react to damage rates. It begins to be able to detect subtle variances, it can begin to detect the differences of light when something passes between it and the light source. Between the sensory organ and light energy reflecting off of something else. Given enough pure chances, the central nervous system that reacted to these sudden changes in light energy had better survival rates then those that did not. Now this crude sensory organ not only can detect variances in overall light, but use these variances to detect movement based on the patterns of light energy hitting this light sensitive organ. It is beginning to work much like what most people would consider eyes.

From here it is a simple matter of the eye organ through evolution to increase in complexity to give the overall organism better survival rates in the brutal world of evolution in a fixed amount of resources and space. The skin of the eye organ grows to be very translucent to allow more light energy to pass through. A cover to protect this sensitive organ. Ever more sensitive specific function cells working in concert to pick up more variance, pass more information to the central nervous system. A dual lens focus system to focus light energy to gather greater detail, I could go through every step but this post is already way to long.

Eventually we arrive at eyes that are highly complex, and specialized for the use of each type of organism and its needs. Human eyes for instance are specialized to pick up on as much information from light reflecting off of nearby objects to discern friend from foe, danger from safety, and to gain large amounts of information with the objects they interact with. A bird of prey's eye is specialized to see minute movement 100's of feet below of activity and size that indicates their prefered prey, but can not see color differences or fine detail of nearby objects.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I'm waiting to see what

I'm waiting to see what aperez thinks of your comment before I respond.

Armando Perez's picture
@ JXB

@ JXB

I think it is a good reasoning explaining why eyes evolved. The interesting part here is that, even if science does not have a fossil for every step of eye evolution for vertebrates it only means we do not have enough fossils, not that evolutionary theory is wrong, as there are endless other aspects with documented evidence, plus the information provided by DNA and biochemical analysis and mathematical simulation that corroborates the fossil findings. You can see some of the work done about eye evolution here.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/eyes-on-the-prize-evolution-of-vision.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350946213000402

As we stand today, evolution is the best scientific way to explain the emergence and evolution of vision and more research is being done to test and improve the explanation of this specific organ.

I do not really get what is your problem. Nothing that has been found so far about the evolution of the eye contradicts evolution as a whole.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
The second article is too

The second article is too long. Is there a specific section you want me to read? The first article argues that, "there were already complex, well-developed eyes by the Early Cambrian," which almost seems to make things worse. Anyway, I said previously that I don't hold the absence of evidence against evolution; but that looking for evidence in other places is not a substitute.

"I do not really get what is your problem. Nothing that has been found so far about the evolution of the eye contradicts evolution as a whole."

I personally think its impossible to find evidence that contradicts evolution. Its a fluid theory which can mold itself to fit whatever container of evidence you put it in. It can even fit the Christian narrative since it doesn't interfere with origins. My problem has to do with the generalizations and simplifications that are often made. I'm not talking about the simplications which make it easier and time-efficient for a speaker to communicate with a listener; I'm talking about the types of simplifications that seem negligent of information. The example I always give is Dawkins' famous and influential demonstration, which is simplistic to the point of being misleading and misinformative, mind you it was aimed at kids. Another example is the Nilsson-Pelger estimate which your NMH article used; but which your G.C. Young paper from last week said "simplified things greatly by considering only one aspect of the complexity of the vertebrate eye."

I take issue which such simplifications. There are legitimate obstacles to the evolution of vision, which are glossed over and ignored when the narrative is simplified. That does not mean evolution can't overcome such obstacles, but it does mean evidence is needed to explain how it overcame them. We shouldn't fill in those gaps by looking at "other aspects."

Armando Perez's picture
Again, nobody is glossing

Again, nobody is glossing over anything. There are things that are not know yet, so I repeat myself "As we stand today, evolution is the best scientific way to explain the emergence and evolution of vision and more research is being done to test and improve the explanation of this specific organ."

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I gave you two examples of

I gave you two examples of glossing over information.

LogicFTW's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

The second article is too long.

My problem has to do with the generalizations and simplifications that are often made.

I take issue which (sic) such simplifications.

which is simplistic to the point of being misleading and misinformative, mind you it was aimed at kids

So, you do not want articles to be too long, but take issue with simplifications.

"there were already complex, well-developed eyes by the Early Cambrian," which almost seems to make things worse.

Worse in the sense that the evolution of the "well-developed" eye missed out on 10-20 million years of more evolution to reach well developed stage? Compared to the 2nd or 3rd Cambrian age?

There are legitimate obstacles to the evolution of vision, which are glossed over and ignored when the narrative is simplified.

Name me a few? Are those obstacles greater than the "legitimate obstacles" of intelligent design?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
1. I do believe I specified

1. I do believe I specified the type of simplification I'm against, which has nothing to do with the length of articles. That said, aperez has stated many times that he doesn't understand what my problem/objection is, so I'm not going to invest the next three hours of my life reading an article which may end up not even addressing my issues. If there is a specific section he wants me to read I'll read it. If he wants to summarize the article other than just linking it that's fine too.

2. Yes, evolutionists tend to justify the most improbable of changes, by throwing time and trials to the equation. But if instead of taking billions of years to evolve, all its essential components were present during the early Cambrian, that makes things slightly worse to account for. That's where the Nilsson-Pelger paper comes into play.

3. I linked two such obstacles earlier when speaking to TheBlindWatchmaker; and no, I don't care what obstacles intelligent design faces, and neither should you since we're talking about evolution. Evolution isn't right on account of intelligent design being wrong.

LogicFTW's picture
1. Okay fair enough, just

1. Okay fair enough, just know non simplified scientific research papers do not tend to be short. Stuff written for kids and or short and to the point tend to have to be simplified.
2. Early Cambrian age started ~500 million years ago, leaving ~4 billion years before that for life to evolve. I call that billions of years.
3. So you admit you do not care what problems there are with your side of the argument (intelligent design.) I do agree with you, intelligent design being wrong does not prove evolution. Evolution certainly does not need to prove it self in that way anyhow.

Scientist that study evolution are in agreement. Evolution is the very well supported by study, fact, and theory. Scientist are as confident of the evolution theory as they are the theory of electricity. The theory you rely on to talk with us online, (as well as many other scientific theories.) Keep dismissing scientific consensus that you rely on every day, as that is your right, but know you come off as hypocritical.

Also know many religious institutions are also switching over and accepting the theory of evolution as the evidence of evolution theory when presented to these religious leaders, (when they take the time to learn it,) as the evidence is overwhelming.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I don't have a side; I

I don't have a side; I probably know more about evolution than I do about intelligent design.

LogicFTW's picture
I apologize for assuming you

I apologize for assuming you were on the intelligent design side of things. I re-read the thread and realize you pointed this out before, you just had some parts of evolution you had questions about.

I think a "I don't know for an answer" is fine. So you are undecided if evolution theory is correct, or intelligent design or something else. Correct?

What do you think is most likely how the eye came to be? Evolution or intelligent design or something else like: intelligent ET's? (Please be descriptive of your something else.)

Armando Perez's picture
@J6IX B

@J6IX B

Do you agree that "As we stand today, evolution is the best scientific way to explain the emergence and evolution of vision and more research is being done to test and improve the explanation of this specific organ."?

Armando Perez's picture
What I do not understand is

What I do not understand is how, being an intelligent person, can you object to something you do not know about and have not read enough about from serious sources. That is what I meant. I provided you with articles that explain the evolution of vision and how several fields of research aid to build the explanations. I recognize it is not a simple matter and you do not want to read because they are long. Sorry then, but their is no "knowledge pill". The people who work in science spent decades on it to get to where they are and the amount of papers, reports, presentations and peer discussions they attend, study, read critically and analyze is vast. If you want to make informed observations to a branch of science nowadays you need to study the materials. Not even biologist can digest and be experts on all or even most biological areas of research.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Let's be clear, you've linked

Let's be clear, you've linked three articles so far in this thread. I read the first two in their entirety and failed to see any relevance. Your G.C. Young article was interesting, but what was the point? Your NMH just points out that, "there were already complex, well-developed eyes by the Early Cambrian..." That seems more like a fun-fact than anything else. What do you want me to do with that information, and why did I need to read the whole thing just to extract that tid-bit? Then comes your 68 page paper, titled, "Evolution of phototransduction, vertebrate photoreceptors and retina." Now, notice that in the thread I linked for TheBlindWatchmaker, which lead to this entire conversation, I said: "When you study the eye you come to realize that photoreceptors are the least interesting part of the visual system." So what does this paper do for me? You need to show me relevance, because it doesn't seem you have a point; it just seems you want to show "some of the work done about eye evolution."

That said, I've had to study plenty about the visual system. All the obstacles I present are born from that knowledge.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Ignoring the fact that you're

Ignoring the fact that you're begging the question (evolution being the best explanation for the evolution of vision) yes, evolution is definitely the best scientific explanation.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Firstly, This is directed at

Firstly, This is directed at all involved by the way, and not specifically Breezy.
I replied under in order to continue the chain of conversation.

But I would like to ask, Are there any other arguments for how the eye evolved?

The argument I have read against it appears to simply be an argument from incredulity.

I would ask however, would anyone accept the evolution of the eye being a mystery or being the product of intelligent design or supernatural intervention?

Personally, and this is strictly my opinion, Evolution is an accurate scientific tool and the evidence is substantial in the support of it.
If we can accept that humans evolved then it logically follows that so did the eye.
Finally I would add that everything in nature comports to the laws of nature, and that there is no non naturalistic reason for any phenomena in nature.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.