The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Do You Know About Human Eye?(26) Options
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:47:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,014
Neurons: 62,554
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
The human eyes are light-dependant. We cannot see anything in the absence of light.The thought is simple but a truth and food-for-thought.




Isn't it astonishing?


Is it a trasitional phase in race of evolution?
#2. Is it inacapability of the super-power?
or #3. Is it designed so for some other purpose, not known to mankind?
or #4 For any other reason?

I don't doubt the power of super-power but I want to know the reason.


Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 10:13:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 473
Neurons: 3,042
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
An eye has evolved to be a photoreceptor that enables the organism that has one to respond to light as a stimulus.
For organisms where that is an advantage then the eye is passed on through natural selection.
In organisms where the eye provides no advantage and costs metabolic energy to grow and maintain for no advantage such as cave dwellers then natural selection trends against them.
There are no superpowers or design involved,

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:25:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,014
Neurons: 62,554
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Sarrriesfan writes;

An eye has evolved to be a photoreceptor that enables the organism that has one to respond to light as a stimulus.

A transition in the evolutionary phase. I agree.

I will wait for the other opinions.


Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 1:19:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,620
Neurons: 134,309
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

I like to think that the eye is a physical substitute for the ability to simply KNOW what's happening around one.

However, what we have objective proof of is the science of the day - all outside that is speculation and opinion.

I can't find the quote I want. It was a few years ago.
I am certain it was an ice-hockey player, and he said something like "I don't have to look around; when I'm playing, I know where every other player is and where they intend to move."

And another "scientific article" in the popular media which proved that it is physically impossible to play table tennis.
By the time the eye has sent a message to the brain that your opponent has hit the ball in 'that' direction and with 'this' spin and swerve, and the brain has sent a message to the arm and leg muscles to get you into position to hit that ball . . . the ball went past you milliseconds ago!
Ah! I found a similar thing in a psychology book, Mental Models and Successful Ideas
By Valentin Matcas
"Table tennis is too fast to be played by humans, since the reflex of the human process of thinking . . . too slow"

The eye is a substitute for this ability to know, which most people don't use.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
TMe
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:15:44 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 230
Neurons: 1,549
Eye Function

Eye function renders you the sense of sight. Eyes convert light into electrical signals. Afterward, the brain deciphers these electrical signals into images. Properly working healthy eyes are able to perform many functions,differentiate colors, show reactions and actions (like showing emotions, shedding tears in moments of happiness and sadness, love-at-first-sight, anger, passion, positive and negative attitude, eroticism, producing excellent arts works, hatred, nausea and vomiting and some ghastly sites cause loose motions at times).

AND ABOVE ALL THEY CAUSE SECRETION OF SALIVA ON SEEING PALATABLE AND DELECTABLE FOOD.Dancing

So marvelous, wonderful and terrific are these gifts from Almighty. One should take good care.

Dogs cannot see colors, so their world is black and white.













Deliberate practice of one hour is worth ten hours of normal practice.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:02:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Sarrriesfan wrote:
An eye has evolved to be a photoreceptor that enables the organism that has one to respond to light as a stimulus.
For organisms where that is an advantage then the eye is passed on through natural selection.
In organisms where the eye provides no advantage and costs metabolic energy to grow and maintain for no advantage such as cave dwellers then natural selection trends against them.
There are no superpowers or design involved,

I like these two quotes from Detecting Design In The Human Eye
Quote:

(1) Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them?  This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is "better" than the others.  Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments on such things such things that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.
 

Quote:

(2) The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts.  I have yet to see this done. As it currently stands, the theory of evolution is based only on correlation and inference, but not on actual demonstration. 


Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:54:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 473
Neurons: 3,042
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Dreamy wrote:
Sarrriesfan wrote:
An eye has evolved to be a photoreceptor that enables the organism that has one to respond to light as a stimulus.
For organisms where that is an advantage then the eye is passed on through natural selection.
In organisms where the eye provides no advantage and costs metabolic energy to grow and maintain for no advantage such as cave dwellers then natural selection trends against them.
There are no superpowers or design involved,

I like these two quotes from Detecting Design In The Human Eye
Quote:

(1) Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them?  This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is "better" than the others.  Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments on such things such things that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.
 

Quote:

(2) The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts.  I have yet to see this done. As it currently stands, the theory of evolution is based only on correlation and inference, but not on actual demonstration. 


It is very difficult for humans to show evolution of complex forms, by its very nature it take a length of time that dwarves our human history.
We can see e out ion in more simple terms on a human timescale. take the peppered moth it has two forms a light coloured one and a dark coloured one, in areas where there is a lot of industrial pollution and the surfaces that the moth rests on are covered by soot the dark formed on is more common than the lighter one as birds cannot see it and eat it. The light one stands out.
But for evolution of Geological time I,would point to the position of the anus in Echinoids from the regular forms to the irregular forms. Regular Echinoid fossils are the only type found in early in the fossil record and thier gut is a simple tube that passes from the mouth to the top surface of their shell. Throughout time more complex forms evolved and the anus migrates through time to a postion that is on the side of the animal meaning that new species were able to exploit more environments than their regular cousins.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 7,713
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Sarrriesfan wrote:
It is very difficult for humans to show evolution of complex forms, by its very nature it take a length of time that dwarves our human history.

Yes! A huge leap of faith is required.

Sarrriesfan wrote:
We can see e out ion in more simple terms on a human timescale. take the peppered moth it has two forms a light coloured one and a dark coloured one, in areas where there is a lot of industrial pollution and the surfaces that the moth rests on are covered by soot the dark formed on is more common than the lighter one as birds cannot see it and eat it. The light one stands out.
But for evolution of Geological time I,would point to the position of the anus in Echinoids from the regular forms to the irregular forms. Regular Echinoid fossils are the only type found in early in the fossil record and thier gut is a simple tube that passes from the mouth to the top surface of their shell. Throughout time more complex forms evolved and the anus migrates through time to a postion that is on the side of the animal meaning that new species were able to exploit more environments than their regular cousins.

Hmm. Seems more like adaptation to me. New species arise from selective breeding and the fact that the anus is either posterior or on the oral surface of irregular echinoids seems to point back to gene pairing, but I would have to study the research to answer in more depth.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:16:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
Does no one on this site have an appetite for pigeon chess? I’ll play:

If one starts out with an immoveable conclusion, that a particular version of a particular deity exists, I guess you have no choice but to cherry pick, ignore or pervert the facts to fit. However, if you look at this ‘design’ argument objectively, it’s clear to see (pun intended) that the eye is actually not at all well designed. The human eye is exactly what you’d expect to find in an organ that has evolved in a species that is diurnal, a predator, and land based. Nothing more and nothing less.

Naturally, about 50% of the time, the human eye is either practically useless (in poor light) or totally useless (in the dark).

Human eyes are positioned in such a way that our field of view is limited to less than 180 degrees… not including the naturally occurring blind spot found in vertebrates due to the ‘unintelligent’ upside-down and inside-out ‘design’.

The human eye is useless in water environments that account for roughly 75% of the planet.

The human eye only works across a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Eyes in general are highly prone to defects and degeneration; over 70% of people will experience some form of defect within their lifetime… and the ‘intelligence’ that leads a benevolent god to design complex parasites, that favour the eye as easy access, might be better saved for a thread in the Religion sub-forum.

Quote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.


Nonsense. Humans have, in fact, designed and made countless things – many far more complex than the eye – to get around the ‘design’ deficiencies of the eye. I predict a moving of the goalposts here, to a claim that intelligence and ingenuity indicate design.

Quote:
The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts. I have yet to see this done. As it currently stands, the theory of evolution is based only on correlation and inference, but not on actual demonstration.

This quote is a variation on the same faulty logic that is utilised whenever the subject of the fossil record is raised; give a creationist an example of a transitional fossil between A to Z and they’ll move the goalpost and claim that two gaps, between A to M and M to Z, is double the proof that the record is incomplete.

I’m old enough to remember a time when creationist rejected all evolution. But as evidence of observable examples of evolution in action became overwhelming, creationist began accepting ‘adaptation’ as part of ‘creation’, while clinging to the ideological objection to evolution over longer periods – to be fair, many also think the Earth is just thousands of years old, so the bigger picture may be difficult to grasp… Think

There is absolutely no scientific distinction in process between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The only difference is time scales and nomenclature. Species, class, and order (or ‘kind’ if your science is Bible based) are simplified distinctions that make the overlapping spectrum of biological sciences practical.

One example of evolution in action, observed within a human generation, is the three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis). Members of the species in lowland regions are oviparous, while members of the same species that have migrated into mountainous regions are evolving (or have evolved) to become viviparous. This is a distinct physiological difference. It’s likely the two groups will eventually need to be classed as distinct species.

No doubt creationists will subjectively classify this as ‘adaption’ and not evolution… but what about a further scenario where live-bearing, mountain skink ‘adapt’ again, perhaps becoming warm blooded, or losing the need and physiology of legs, or perhaps evolving to adapt to an aquatic existence?
These ‘adaptations’ have and do happen, it’s the basis of evolutionary theory. Timescales and human observation is irrelevant.

The distinction creationist try to make is like accepting that a granite block can be carved, but a cathedral or whole cities, of many individual granite blocks, carved and added to over thousands of generations, is impossibly complex. Brick wall

Dreamy wrote:
Yes! A huge leap of faith is required.

Ignoring for now the fallacious conflation of objective and subjective claims, are you, as a theist, implying that faith is an inferior or flawed method of reasoning? Think

Dreamy wrote:
Hmm. Seems more like adaptation to me. New species arise from selective breeding and the fact that the anus is either posterior or on the oral surface of irregular echinoids seems to point back to gene pairing, but I would have to study the research to answer in more depth.


Hmm. Seems open minded... but with respect, you clearly don’t understand the science. And you won't research anything. Creationist have one modus operandi: you'll ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. I’m reminded of the time you posited – complete with scientific sounding jargon – a variable speed of light, along with ‘adaptations’ to just about every other observed physical law, to support a more biblically acceptable age of the universe... I think it was you that butchered, at least once, the second law of thermodynamics as well. Shame on you

My advice would be to stick with what you know. If Faith really is as valid as theists claim, then you shouldn’t need to appeal to the credibility of science… displaying your ignorance in the process.


.
will
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:24:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 975
Neurons: 3,841
In this thread Dreamy wrote:
Without the eye would there be telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see?

That was not the point you originally made. The quote you originally provided said:

Quote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

Telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see – to use your own words – are definitively ‘as good or better than the human eye'.

So, are you abandoning this argument that the human eye is intelligently designed?


.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.