When asked how something as complex as the eye evolved, atheist Richard Dawkins launched into his usual spiel about how such evolution is so easy that the eye evolved MANY times over, independently. For example, an octupuses eye evolved independently of a human eye, but has marked similarity.



If the eye evolved so easily, how come the ability to see infrared didn't evolve?

This would have conferred huge advantage on creatures that get hunted at night. They would be able to see their predators easily by the heat of their bodies.

All the framework is there to extend to infrared vision. Why didn't that happen?

(Edit: wait for the usual idiots and hypocrites to enter thread...)

Talk about brainwashing and regurgitating popular phrases of religiotards.

For your information, this topic has been thrashed out a dozen times on this forum with more enlightened and honest theists than yourself.

I doubt that anyone would waste their time to go through with these lessons for you again.
We have been there and done that.

You think that atheists owe you an education.

I wonder why people who cannot give a satisfactory proof of the invisible sky fairy demand that non believers owe them a satisfactory kindergarten explanations for the processes and mechanisms of evolution.

plaetton:
snip

ok, we were expecting this particular non compos to post irrelevant froth.

Anyone with sensible comments?

sinequanon:
When asked how something as complex as the eye evolved, atheist Richard Dawkins launched into his usual spiel about how such evolution is so easy that the eye evolved MANY times over, independently. For example, an octupuses eye evolved independently of a human eye, but has marked similarity.



If the eye evolved so easily, how come the ability to see infrared didn't evolve?

This would have conferred huge advantage on creatures that get hunted at night. They would be able to see their predators easily by the heat of their bodies.

All the framework is there to extend to infrared vision. Why didn't that happen?

(Edit: wait for the usual idiots and hypocrites to enter thread...)

The question doesn't make sense. First of all, animals don't detect infrared radiation with their eyes, not even octopuses, who btw, don't even detect infrared light at all.
Secondly, many bush animals, as they say, already possess a tapetum lucidum, giving them an automatic night vision scope.

Primates don't have this layer of tissue, but then again, we aren't being hunted at night. And we d)amn sure don't want go out hunting at night when the lions are looking for food.

Weah96:


The question doesn't make sense. First of all, animals don't detect infrared radiation with their eyes, not even octopuses, who btw, don't even detect infrared light at all.

Dude, if you can't read and understand the OP, we can't discuss.

Where did these people go to school?

Next...

sinequanon:


Dude, if you can't read and understand the OP, we can't discuss.

Where did these people go to school?

Next...

What are you asking? Animals do not use their eyes to detect infrared radiation. So nobody is SEEING anything.

The overwhelming majority of animals have night vision capabilities, with the exception of primates. But that's because we don't have that layer of tissue behind our retina.

Some animals do detect infrared radiation, but they do so using specialized organs, not their eyes.

Weah96:


What are you asking? Animals do not use their eyes to detect infrared radiation. So nobody is SEEING anything.

Seriously, are you really having this much difficulty reading?

(Apologies if you are dyslexic or something, but I otherwise cannot see what you are finding so difficult.)

The OP SAYS infrared vision is not well-developed in animal eyes. (Why are you repeating it?)

The question is, why hasn't such a "simple" thing evolved, despite the eye itself supposedly evolving independently several times.

Infrared is just an extension of the visible range. (Some insects can supposedly see ultraviolet, which is an extension in the other direction.) All I am asking is what was so difficult about the infrared extension, that it didn't happen.

sinequanon:


Seriously, are you really having this much difficulty reading?

(Apologies if you are dyslexic or something, but I otherwise cannot see what you are finding so difficult.)

The OP SAYS infrared vision is not well-developed in animal eyes. (Why are you repeating it?)

The question is, why hasn't such a "simple" thing evolved, despite the eye itself supposedly evolving independently several times.

Infrared is just an extension of the visible range. (Some insects can supposedly see ultraviolet, which is an extension in the other direction.) All I am asking is what was so difficult about the infrared extension, that it didn't happen.

I'm not repeating anything. I'm saying something entirely different.

Animals do not use their EYES to detect infrared radiation. Your OP, you admit, claims that this capability isn't well developed in the eyes of animals. Those are two different statements.

But never mind. I'll answer the new question.

Why would a tiger want to have infrared detecting eyes, when the night vision ones work just fine? What will you do with the night vision eyes during the daytime when the sunlight is at its brightest?

The capability doesn't confer an advantage in EYEBALLS. In fact, it may be deleterious on the spot. You won't be able to turn it off in the daytime, when you need to find your way somewhere. That's why animals like bats and snakes still have their eyeballs, but evolved extra organs for this infrared detecting business.

Weah96:
But never mind. I'll answer the new question.

You mean the original question in the OP, instead of the one in your head.

Why would a tiger want to have infrared detecting eyes, when the night vision ones work just fine? What will you do with the night vision eyes during the daytime when the sunlight is at its brightest?

I am afraid this is a naive question. "Working just fine" is too glib. ToE is about "better" conferring a relative advantage.

The real argument, which you are getting to is whether "apparently better" really is better.

What you'd do in the daytime is the same as what you do right now for "visible" light -- don't look directly at the sun, blink, etc. You'll have to explain why infrared is different, to make your point.

Also, evolving an infrared filter nictitating membrane should be easy?

The capability doesn't confer an advantage in EYEBALLS. In fact, it may be deleterious on the spot. You won't be able to turn it off in the daytime, when you need to find your way somewhere.

Explain why this is different for "visible" light? Why do you need special turning off capability for infrared.

Weah96:
That's why animals like bats and snakes still have their eyeballs, but evolved extra organs for this infrared detecting business.

Both have very poor eyesight. And, as I said, this in itself does not address the question. It just repeats how things have panned out.

I think your earlier points do address the point.

It's good to have a meaningful debate.

sinequanon:


You mean the original question in the OP, instead of the one in your head.



I am afraid this is a naive question. "Working just fine" is too glib. ToE is about "better" conferring a relative advantage.

The real argument, which you are getting to is whether "apparently better" really is better.

What you'd do in the daytime is the same as what you do right now for "visible" light -- don't look directly at the sun, blink, etc. You'll have to explain why infrared is different, to make your point.

Also, evolving an infrared filter nictitating membrane should be easy?



Explain why this is different for "visible" light? Why do you need special turning off capability for infrared.



Both have very poor eyesight. And, as I said, this in itself does not address the question. It just repeats how things have panned out.

I think your earlier points do address the point.

It's good to have a meaningful debate.

Infrared vision would enable the eyes to detect light in that particular wavelength. It's useful at night time when the sun is on the opposite side of the rock beaming all that infrared radiation.

During sunlight, you may not even be able to detect definition in any images you see. It will all be a bright glowing blur, very painful to the eyes.

Weah96:


Infrared vision would enable the eyes to detect light in that particular wavelength. It's useful at night time when the sun is on the opposite side of the rock beaming all that infrared radiation.

During sunlight, you may not even be able to detect definition in any images you see. It will all be a bright glowing blur, very painful to the eyes.

The eye adjusts for "visible" light. You have yet to explain why it would not be able to adjust for infrared.

Animals that have enhanced vision at night don't see blurred in the day, or suffer pain as a result, do they?

Infrared would be useful because it doesn't require sunlight. The heat from the body of a predator would show show up. It would not be required so much in the daytime, when "visible" light may dominate. The eye should be able to adjust. If not, why not?

sinequanon:

If the eye evolved so easily, how come the ability to see infrared didn't evolve?

This would have conferred huge advantage on creatures that get hunted at night. They would be able to see their predators easily by the heat of their bodies.

All the framework is there to extend to infrared vision. Why didn't that happen?

(Edit: wait for the usual idiots and hypocrites to enter thread...)

Because evolution doesn't have any pre-established goals. Species without infrared vision are still capable of reproducing.

AnalogTechno:


Because evolution doesn't have any pre-established goals. Species without infrared vision are still capable of reproducing.

It is not about goals. It is about probability.

If the probability of the eye evolving is so high, that it evolved independently several times, then why hasn't something apparently less complex, like infrared vision, evolved.

It didn't take a pre-established goal for the eye to evolve independently many times, did it?

Did you not understand the OP?

sinequanon:


It is not about goals. It is about probability.

If the probability of the eye evolving is so high, that it evolved independently several times, then why hasn't something apparently less complex, like infrared vision, evolved.

It didn't take a pre-established goal for the eye to evolve independently many times, did it?

Did you not understand the OP?

2 questions:
- Why do you think the possible evolution of infrared vision is high probability event?
- Does a high probability event have to happen?

AnalogTechno:


2 questions:
- Why do you think the possible evolution of infrared vision is high probability event?
- Does a high probability event have to happen?

LOL, can't you read?

I am saying that it seems probable relative to the evolution of the eye itself, which is deemed probable.

A highly probable event doesn't have to happen.

sinequanon:


LOL, can't you read?

I am saying that it seems probable relative to the evolution of the eye itself, which is deemed probable.

A highly probable event doesn't have to happen.

If an event is probable does it have to happen?

sinequanon:


It is not about goals. It is about probability.

okay.

If the probability of the eye evolving is so high, that it evolved independently several times, then why hasn't something apparently less complex, like infrared vision, evolved.

Can you tell us how you determined infra-red vision to be less complex?
For a creature to develop infra-red vision it has to see below the visible red range of vision...creatures already see above this region...the structure of the eye is already specialized above the infra-red region.

It didn't take a pre-established goal for the eye to evolve independently many times, did it?

No it didn't,it took generations of successful variations of it to establish the norm each species now possess..

Did you not understand the OP?

Evolution works on existing structures...any structure that is already present but does not give a net negative mutation and is heritable would not be selected against.
Our vision is good enough not to be selected against.
This is why ostriches still have hollow bones and why we still eat and breathe through the same place..
Evolution doesn't need "perfection"...just viable structures that work,those then become the norm.
Because the eucharyotes were viable...anything derived from that lineage would be eucharyotic...because mammals are viable anything that is produced from that lineage would still be a mammal....because homonids are viable anything that is derived from it would still be a homonid.

davien:
okay.
Can you tell us how you determined infra-red vision to be less complex?
For a creature to develop infra-red vision it has to see below the visible red range of vision...creatures already see above this region...the structure of the eye is already specialized above the infra-red region.

I said," seemingly less complex." If your answer is that it is more complex, then say so, and don't beat about the bush.

Then we can discuss what is complex, and compare the complexity with the evolution of the eye.

Sorry about the lecture in the rest of your post. I couldn't tie it in with the thread. What is it for? I can ramble on about ToE as well.

sinequanon:


I said," seemingly less complex." If your answer is that it is more complex, then say so, and don't beat about the bush.

Then we can discuss what is complex, and compare the complexity with the evolution of the eye.

Sorry about the lecture in the rest of your post. I couldn't tie it in with the thread. What is it for? I can ramble on about ToE as well.

My position is not based on eyes being derived by level of "complexity".
Evolution doesn't work by what you perceive as "complexity".

davien:
My position is not based on eyes being derived by level of "complexity".

Can you complete your point? I can't follow your hints.

The OP is about the eye being so "simple" that it evolved many times independently. I don't want to keep asking you to read and remember.

If you are talking about something else, you can open a new thread.

sinequanon:


Can you complete your point? I can't follow your hints.

The OP is about the eye being so "simple" that it evolved many times independently. I don't want to keep asking you to read and remember.

If you are talking about something else, you can open a new thread.

davien:
Evolution doesn't work by what you perceive as "complexity".

"Work by" ?

That was not the assertion. Complexity comes into the probability of something evolving.

sinequanon:


LOL, can't you read?

I am saying that it seems probable relative to the evolution of the eye itself, which is deemed probable.

A highly probable event doesn't have to happen.

Like Davien just said, natural selection isn't a candy store. You can't just pick and choose favorable traits to adopt.

Why stop at infrared? It would be way better if our eyes could detect the entire spectrum of EMR.

Weah96:


Like Davien just said, natural selection isn't a candy store. You can't just pick and choose favorable traits to adopt.

Why stop at infrared? It would be way better if our eyes could detect the entire spectrum of EMR.

Yes it would. And your point is?

(We don't pick and choose according to ToE. The environment does. And I don't know what a candy store has to do with it.)

sinequanon:


Yes it would. And your point is?

(We don't pick and choose according to ToE. The environment does. And I don't know what a candy store has to do with it.)

What is the environment, if I may ask? ToE, whatever that is, doesn't pick anything. Nature does. Evolution only explains the mechanism.

Weah96:


What is the environment, if I may ask? ToE, whatever that is, doesn't pick anything. Nature does. Evolution only explains the mechanism.

I think you are trying to be funny and pretending not to understand English.

ToE is short for Theory of Evolution. And my post doesn't say it picks anything. Have a nice day.

Happy turkey day.

sinequanon:


I think you are trying to be funny and pretending not to understand English.

ToE is short for Theory of Evolution. And my post doesn't say it picks anything. Have a nice day.

Why can't you just say evolution? Reminds me of the people who have difficulty writing God. The ones who write G_d. What is that?

Anyway, happy thanksgiving.

Weah96:


Why can't you just say evolution? Reminds me of the people who have difficulty writing God. The ones who write G_d. What is that?

Anyway, happy thanksgiving.

Evolution means "gradual" change. For me that is not really in question. There is evidence of change.

ToE, on the other hand, which is short for Darwin's Theory of Evolution specifically refers to a mechanism by which evolution is supposed to have been driven.

You really need to understand the difference to spot the tricks of folks like Richard Dawkins.

He will claim that the fact of evolution is not in doubt, and that almost all scientists with any reputation believe it.

He is not talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. For that, the figures are a lot more modest, and there are many contentious issues.

But Dawkins knows that his ignorant lay followers and cheerleaders (many in the media) will misunderstand and say that ToE is 99 per cent accepted. So they do his dirty work, while his opponents cannot criticize what he actually said.

sinequanon:


Evolution means "gradual" change. For me that is not really in question. There is evidence of change.

ToE, on the other hand, which is short for Darwin's Theory of Evolution specifically refers to a mechanism by which evolution is supposed to have been driven.

You really need to understand the difference to spot the tricks of folks like Richard Dawkins.

He will claim that the fact of evolution is not in doubt, and that almost all scientists with any reputation believe it.

He is not talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. For that, the figures are a lot more modest, and there are many contentious issues.

But Dawkins knows that his ignorant lay followers and cheerleaders (many in the media) will misunderstand and say that ToE is 99 per cent accepted. So they do his dirty work, while his opponents cannot criticize what he actually said.

What is it about Darwin's theory that you find contentious? I am always open to new information.

Weah96:


What is it about Darwin's theory that you find contentious? I am always open to new information.

I can't find something contentious. Contention is something that happens between people, in this case, scientists in the field.

I can tell you that I do NOT accept that

1. anyone has demonstrated that random mutations happen frequently enough to account for all the changes that have happened. All they have is gut feel. And my gut feel is that 4 billion years is not enough.

2. consciousness is an emergent property due to the complexity of neural systems. (the answer to the "hard question" in ToE laughable.)

3. Free will is an illusion.

... to name a few.

sinequanon:


I can't find something contentious. Contention is something that happens between people, in this case, scientists in the field.

okay

I can tell you that I do NOT accept that

okay

1. anyone has demonstrated that random mutations happen frequently enough to account for all the changes that have happened. All they have is gut feel. And my gut feel is that 4 billion years is not enough.

So "gut feeling" determines speciation now?...mutations happen frequently...that is a biological fact of life....offsprings are never perfect copies of parents...as generations go by mutations cause fluctuations in genotypical and phenotypical morphologies till a standard is reached.
If the standard is not flexible enough to adapt and exploit new environmental factors it dies out.
4 billion years does not entail that the environment had the same environmental pressures....rather creatures had diverse conditions to contend against...so each population that had a selective advantage in different conditions could reinforce those changes and diverge into new sub-sets of the parent lineage.
Whether you have a "gut feeling" is irrelevant to conclusions....

2. consciousness is an emergent property due to the complexity of neural systems. (the answer to the "hard question" in ToE laughable.)

For someone who believes a "gut feeling" is sufficient to dismiss decades of research,it would not be surprising that you'd get a laugh off a theory for not accounting for what you perceive it should.
I've asked you several times to define consciousness....but arrogance to do so has prevented you to....instead you'd claim you "know" and will only have a conversation with people who also claim to "know" like you do.

3. Free will is an illusion.

What is "free will"?... does the theory of evolution ever account for it? or are you merging your own expectations to the theory of evolution with a "gut feeling"?

... to name a few.

okay...kindly answer those questions before we can go further.

davien:
okay...kindly answer those questions before we can go further.

...kindly read the points again...and think before you post.

There is NO research, let alone decades of research on whether 4 billion years IS LONG ENOUGH for a random process with selection to produce the variety of life we see. The hypothesis that it IS long enough is just gut feel by scientists. EVERYBODY is using gut feel....DUH! Get it now?

Post after post you show lack of comprehension. You just see one word and you regurgitate the first thing that has been stuffed into your head.

The whole point is NOT whether certain events have happened, but whether or not they must have had some non-random agency.

Go and read. I have explained what needs to happen to make Darwin's Hypothesis a theory.

(Now you are going to regurgitate your brainwash label that ToE is "a theory and a fact", without addressing the point that NOBODY has produced any evidence that it is FEASIBLE in the time frame.)

Actually, forget it. I've just remembered who you are.