Thread: Questions for people who are actually educated in evolution...?

First, I accept evolution. The eye thing is weak. They sunburned nerve end doesn't do it for me. BUT here is what is conjectured. The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Incorrect. Even in modern animals we see simple patches of light-sensitive cells, 'pinhole camera' eyes, and a myriad of other forms that can be put into a rough line of simple to complex lightsensing/visual apparatus. So it's incredibly easy to see how the eye evolved.

Actually, this is a complete falsehood perpetrated by fundamentalists.There's a pretty straightforward progression when it comes to eyes. In fact, the eye could be the most easy to explain of all the body's organs. In most animals, skin cells have a certain sensitivity to light. All that would have to happen is for some of those cells to increase their sensitivity....and it just goes from there.Plenty of books explain it.

Seeing as evolution takes faith i suppose you're in the right place.Micro evolution is true, but we call it adaptation, if you get sick, you will build an immunity to the sickness, however with the immunity, after long you will no longer need it because your body hasn't had to fight it, so it fades away.Macro evolution has not been proven, it has no hard evidence, no recorded instances that SHOW that something has altered permanently due to an outside stimulus. People feel natural selection is an answer to this however, it has been shown countless times, that mutations are usually horrifically destructive and never result in anything beneficial to the organism that carries it.Certainly there may be physical similarities between different creatures, however, one thing that is missing is the creature that falls between the two (or realistically it would be many) a good example is that someone could say A horse and a dog are similar in build so it could be suggested that a dog came from a horse or vice versa, however I don't see any dog/horse hybrids anywhere, not even in the fossil records. So logically you can't deduce that they came from one another.Another explanation is that they may have come from a common ancestor. The problem I find with this is that it has been proven that altering the physical attributes of the parents of a species does nothing to alter their children. so even if the external world changes, though they may have to adapt, they will not change permanently.Evolution takes as much faith as a religion.

There are literally thousands of transitional forms of optic organs represented in the living life forms on the planet today.Part of the confusion is that most of these get labeled as "eyes" even when structurally and functionally they are very different.Some organisms have "eyes" that are no more than a collection of cells (or even a single cell) that can detect changes in light intensity - i.e. tell the difference between whether it's dark or light. Others have a cluster of cells - so that shifts between which cells detect dark and which detect light can allow the organism to detect movement.Although these are called "eyes", they are definitely a far cry from the more complex organs with sheets of multi-colour sensitive cells on a retina, a lens and iris system to focus and adjust for light levels, and muscles to adjust the field of view - but each of the stages functions very well at the task it is supposed to do.

Use your head, why would there be anything like an eye -- which is no good except for seeing -- why would it keep evolving to that blind point just before one can see. You are pig-headed. You believe what you darn well want to. And excusing it as 'I don't really care that much' OR 'I am not big into trying to answer life's questions' -- That just marks you as a trivial person.

We don't have any fossil eyes to look at, but clues to the various stages of the eye's evolution can still be seen today in modern animals. You have simple unicellular creatures with a light sensitive spot, then you have worms with a cluster of light-sensitive cells at one end, then you have the horseshoe crab that has the light-sensitive cells in a pit so it has a little directionality, then you have the murex snail which has a pit with a simple lens.So there is good reason to believe that the eye has continued to evolve through all the stages of our evolution from worm-like creature or even earlier.

i know your gonna get a answer for this question and it doesn't matter what it is. if it's right or if it's wrong......... it's a miracle......... evolution happening is a miracle taking place no one can reproduce it. no one can make evolution happen. there is only one that can