Cambrian Eye Destroys Idea Of Gradual Eye Evolution

[Richard 1]

Seems the Darwin party is back to no answer for eye evolution based on an arthropod fossil found in the Cambrian which had modern, complex, compound eyes but no ancestor or transitional predecessor. Of course, protestations to the contrary, the Cambrian Explosion is, in itself a major problem for evolution since complex creatures just seem to have popped into existence as if, well, as if they were just created, but Darwin forbid that someone understand the implication of such a notion, so enter all sorts of fanciful just so stories. We're told the eye "appeared," as if it were always there -- just invisible. He who has eyes to see, let him see!

[jason777 1]

Sensory organs (I didn't use the term eyes because they are sometimes so primitive that sight is useless), are irreducibly complex at the basic level. A light receptor has to have an optic nerve and a brain to process the information. Some think that jellyfish fill this transition because they have primitive eyes and no brain. Jellyfish don't have a cranium to house a brain, so their small brains are spread throughout their bodies in highly interconnected nerve attachments. The box jellyfish has the most complex eyes; They have four upward pointing eyes (that have been compared to human eyes) that have a tiny brain cluster behind each one. The more complex the sensory organ - the more brain needed to process the information.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[ikester7579 20]

But don't you guys understand, it just happens because evolutionist say it does. No matter the complexity or the possibility, it happens just because it exists and evolution is a true proven absolute fact.

 

And if you don't believe that, I will bang you over the head with it until you look like this . So we must bow to the Evolution god . But then again Not!

[jason777 1]

Yes, Isaac. The eye just happened to come about by natural causes and we have the empirical evidence to support it.

 

 

 

 

Refractive Errors

 

 

Refractive errors are the most frequent eye problems in the United States. Refractive errors include myopia (near-sightedness), hyperopia (farsightedness), astigmatism (distorted vision at all distances), and presbyopia that occurs between age 40-50 years (loss of the ability to focus up close, inability to read letters of the phone book, need to hold newspaper farther away to see clearly) can be corrected by eyeglasses, contact lenses, or in some cases surgery. Recent studies conducted by the National Eye Institute showed that proper refractive correction could improve vision among 11 million Americans 12 years and older.

 

 

Age-Related Macular Degeneration

 

 

Macular degeneration, often called age-related macular degeneration (AMD), is an eye disorder associated with aging and results in damaging sharp and central vision. Central vision is needed for seeing objects clearly and for common daily tasks such as reading and driving. AMD affects the macula, the central part the retina that allows the eye to see fine details. There are two forms of AMD, wet and dry.

Wet AMD: when abnormal blood vessel behind the retina start to grow under the macula, ultimately leading to blood and fluid leakage. Bleeding, leaking, and scarring from these blood vessels cause damage and lead to rapid central vision loss. An early symptom of wet AMD is that straight lines appear wavy.

Dry AMD: When the macula thins overtime as part of aging process, gradually blurring central vision. The dry form is more common and accounts for 70-90% of cases of AMD and it progresses more slowly than the wet form. Over time, as less of the macula functions, central vision is gradually lost in the affected eye. Dry AMD generally affects both eyes. One of the most common early signs of dry AMD is drusen.

Drusen: Drusen are tiny yellow or white deposits under the retina. They often are found in people over age 60. The presence of small drusen is normal and does not cause vision loss. However, the presence of large and more numerous drusen raises the risk of developing advanced dry AMD or wet AMD.

It is estimated that 1.8 million Americans 40 years and older are affected by AMD and an additional 7.3 million with large drusen are at substantial risk of developing AMD. The number of people with AMD is estimated to reach 2.95 million in 2020. AMD is the leading cause of permanent impairment of reading and fine or close-up vision among people aged 65 years and older.

 

Cataract

 

 

 

Cataract is a clouding of the eye’s lens and is the leading cause of blindness worldwide, and the leading cause of vision loss in the United States. Cataracts can occur at any age due to a variety of causes, and can be present at birth. Although treatment for the removal of cataract is widely available, access barriers such as insurance coverage, treatment costs, patient choice, or lack of awareness prevent many people from receiving the proper treatment.

An estimated 20.5 million (17.2%) Americans 40 years and older have cataract in one or both eyes, and 6.1 million (5.1%) have had their lens removed operatively. The total number of people who have cataracts is estimated to increase to 30.1 million by 2020.

 

Diabetic Retinopathy

 

 

 

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a common complication of diabetes. It is the leading cause of blindness in American adults. It is characterized by progressive damage to the blood vessels of the retina, the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye that is necessary for good vision. DR progresses through 4 stages, mild nonproliferative retinopathy (microaneurysms), moderate nonproliferative retinopathy (blockage in some retinal vessels), severe nonproliferative retinopathy (more vessels are blocked leading to deprived retina from blood supply leading to growing new blood vessels), and proliferative retinopathy (most advanced stage). Diabetic retinopathy usually affects both eyes.

The risks of DR are reduced through disease management that includes good control of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipid abnormalities. Early diagnosis of DR and timely treatment reduce the risk of vision loss; however, as many as 50% of patients are not getting their eyes examined or are diagnosed too late for treatment to be effective.

It is the leading cause of blindness among working-aged adults in the United States ages 20–74. An estimated 4.1 million and 899,000 Americans are affected by retinopathy and vision-threatening retinopathy, respectively.

Glaucoma

 

 

 

Glaucoma is a group of diseases that can damage the eye's optic nerve and result in vision loss and blindness. Glaucoma occurs when the normal fluid pressure inside the eyes slowly rises. However, recent findings now show that glaucoma can occur with normal eye pressure. With early treatment, you can often protect your eyes against serious vision loss.

There are two major categories “open angle” and “closed angle” glaucoma. Open angle, is a chronic condition that progress slowly over long period of time without the person noticing vision loss until the disease is very advanced, that is why it is called “sneak thief of sight". Angle closure can appear suddenly and is painful. Visual loss can progress quickly; however, the pain and discomfort lead patients to seek medical attention before permanent damage occurs.

 

Amblyopia

 

 

 

Amblyopia, also referred to as “lazy eye,” is the most common cause of vision impairment in children. Amblyopia is the medical term used when the vision in one of the eyes is reduced because the eye and the brain are not working together properly. The eye itself looks normal, but it is not being used normally because the brain is favoring the other eye. Conditions leading to amblyopia include; strabismus, an imbalance in the positioning of the two eyes; more nearsighted, farsighted, or astigmatic in one eye than the other eye, and rarely other eye conditions such as cataract.

Unless it is successfully treated in early childhood, amblyopia usually persists into adulthood, and is the most common cause of permanent one-eye vision impairment among children and young and middle-aged adults. An estimated 2%–3% of the population suffers from amblyopia.

 

Strabismus

 

 

Strabismus involves an imbalance in the positioning of the two eyes. Strabismus can cause the eyes to cross in (esotropia) or turn out (exotropia). Strabismus is caused by a lack of coordination between the eyes. As a result, the eyes look in different directions and do not focus simultaneously on a single point. In most cases of strabismus in children, the cause is unknown. In more than half of these cases, the problem is present at or shortly after birth (congenital strabismus). When the two eyes fail to focus on the same image, there is reduced or absent depth perception and the brain may learn to ignore the input from one eye, causing permanent vision loss in that eye (one type of amblyopia).

 

 

Why does this happen? 100 SNP's occur per embryo and 1 delerteious mutation. Yet; Evolution has always been improving the eye for 600 million years. LOL

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[Richard 1]

Why does this happen? 100 SNP's occur per embryo and 1 delerteious mutation. Yet; Evolution has always been improving the eye for 600 million years. LOL

Hahahaha! I always ask my evo friends, if they think random mutations are always so good, why don't they tell the doctor to leave the lead shield off their gonads the next time they get an X-Ray.

 

.

[Spectre 0]

I find it funny that towards the end of the article "New Scientist" appeals to lamarckian evolution, which is not a form of evolution that is accepted by most scientists.

[AFJ 33]

I find it funny that towards the end of the article "New Scientist" appeals to lamarckian evolution, which is not a form of evolution that is accepted by most scientists.

 

They just do that to cover all the "life found a way" bases! lol

[JayShel 32]

I have Amblyopia O.o. Never knew what it was called...

[Spectre 0]

They just do that to cover all the "life found a way" bases! lol

 

I asked one of my atheist friends and he said "They are just referring to natural selection." Natural selection doesn't pressure something to evolve, It only eliminates when the organism isn't fit. Natural selection itself isn't even a cause, rather it is an effect. I knew when I asked him he would try to bark that out. When I pointed this out to him he had nothing more to say.

[KBC id 3]

... Natural selection doesn't pressure something to evolve, It only eliminates when the organism isn't fit. Natural selection itself isn't even a cause, rather it is an affect.

Do you think this definition is erronious? My understanding of pressures against an organism (natural selection) fall into this specific definition. From my point of view there are many pressures on every organism that it must overcome to continue surviving. Whether these forces are simply the forces of nature such as hot and cold or what I call intelligently designed pressures such as the instinctual actions of other organisms in the hunter vs. hunted scenario. These alltogether are the selective pressures every organism faces.

There is no question that such pressures are incapable of promoting the arising of novelty to overcome such pressures. They are simply pressures that eliminate organisms that are incapable of overcomming them. Now when it comes to elimination of less fit variations that arise from the intelligently designed reproductive mechanism of variability this appears to be a very realistic understanding. If creatures are born with debilitating defects then they would logically not survive as long as another that does not suffer the same defects right?

Does my understand essentially fit with yours? if not how does it differ.

 

My parents (YEC's) asserted that satan caused the effects he did by the mixing of truth with lies to give the lies believability. Would the mixing of the concept of random mutation (the lie) with natural selection (the truth) be an example of this same logic?

[Spectre 0]

Do you think this definition is erronious? My understanding of pressures against an organism (natural selection) fall into this specific definition. From my point of view there are many pressures on every organism that it must overcome to continue surviving. Whether these forces are simply the forces of nature such as hot and cold or what I call intelligently designed pressures such as the instinctual actions of other organisms in the hunter vs. hunted scenario. These alltogether are the selective pressures every organism faces.

There is no question that such pressures are incapable of promoting the arising of novelty to overcome such pressures. They are simply pressures that eliminate organisms that are incapable of overcomming them. Now when it comes to elimination of less fit variations that arise from the intelligently designed reproductive mechanism of variability this appears to be a very realistic understanding. If creatures are born with debilitating defects then they would logically not survive as long as another that does not suffer the same defects right?

Does my understand essentially fit with yours? if not how does it differ.

 

My parents (YEC's) asserted that satan caused the effects he did by the mixing of truth with lies to give the lies believability. Would the mixing of the concept of random mutation (the lie) with natural selection (the truth) be an example of this same logic?

 

You got what I was saying. Believe it or not, I have had atheists try to argue that natural selection directly can cause relevant mutations to occur.

 

As for what Satan did, that is unverifiable. I suppose your parent's idea is a possibility though.

[AFJ 33]

Do you think this definition is erronious? My understanding of pressures against an organism (natural selection) fall into this specific definition. From my point of view there are many pressures on every organism that it must overcome to continue surviving. Whether these forces are simply the forces of nature such as hot and cold or what I call intelligently designed pressures such as the instinctual actions of other organisms in the hunter vs. hunted scenario. These alltogether are the selective pressures every organism faces.

There is no question that such pressures are incapable of promoting the arising of novelty to overcome such pressures. They are simply pressures that eliminate organisms that are incapable of overcomming them. Now when it comes to elimination of less fit variations that arise from the intelligently designed reproductive mechanism of variability this appears to be a very realistic understanding. If creatures are born with debilitating defects then they would logically not survive as long as another that does not suffer the same defects right?

Does my understand essentially fit with yours? if not how does it differ.

 

My parents (YEC's) asserted that satan caused the effects he did by the mixing of truth with lies to give the lies believability. Would the mixing of the concept of random mutation (the lie) with natural selection (the truth) be an example of this same logic?

 

I am always interested in talking to someone who identifies as an agnostic. I think your understanding is pretty close to what is directly observable. Not to deviate, but one side note, and I think it lends itself to the YEC position of baramin--One thing that is rarely mentioned in natural selection are the evident practices of S@xual selection. It uses competition to produce preservation of the strongest, rather than prevention of weaker genes in a linage. So I see this as a positive driving force to preserve the kind, and hinder deleterious mutation.

 

As far as your last question, my answer is yes. Your parents are insightful. Satan mixed the lie with the truth in Genesis, which is why he is so happy evolution theory is widely accepted. He blinds by spiritual ignorance. The first thing that Satan says in the garden of Eden to Eve is, "Has God indeed said..." inducing doubt, the opposite of faith and trust. The second thing he did was inject a lie into the truth, equaling deception--a weapon he uses on men all the time. "You won't surely die [lie], for God knows that when you eat of the tree, your eyes will be opened [truth], and you will be like God [lie], knowing good from evil [truth]." (Gen 2)

[KBC id 3]

You got what I was saying. Believe it or not, I have had atheists try to argue that natural selection directly can cause relevant mutations to occur.

Thx man. I am trying to see how many points we (creationists and I) do have in common and where applicable define where our understandings diverge and why. So far my POV derived from my own interpretation of the evidence seems to reflect well here.

 

As for what Satan did, that is unverifiable. I suppose your parent's idea is a possibility though.

Of course the biblical text cannot be verified on this point buuut, from the text we have it certainly seems like this is an original method. also did you notice that another creationist (AFJ) redily agreed with this point?. Its a small thing but why isn't everyone in agreement from a creationist POV?

 

Not to deviate, but one side note, and I think it lends itself to the YEC position of baramin--One thing that is rarely mentioned in natural selection are the evident practices of S@xual selection. It uses competition to produce preservation of the strongest, rather than prevention of weaker genes in a linage. So I see this as a positive driving force to preserve the kind, and hinder deleterious mutation.

 

Ha! you have stepped across a line here. This form of selection is choice driven...... it is not natural... In most scenario's typically the female makes a choice from an array of suiters based on... I assume an inteligently ingrained instinct that allows for a determination of best choice.

As most evolutionist will point out when one mentions wolf to dog evolution it is artificial selection. So on that same basis choices made by an organism driven by instinct are also artificial right? (this message sent with agnostic luv)

 

As far as your last question, my answer is yes.

I agree with your paragraph. Would also like to ask why you didn't answer the same as Spectre since you are both on the same side? This feeds my understanding of people and how they view their own beliefs. Nothing big here just curious george being.... curious.

[omnevivumexvivo 1]

Of course the biblical text cannot be verified on this point buuut, from the text we have it certainly seems like this is an original method. also did you notice that another creationist (AFJ) redily agreed with this point?. Its a small thing but why isn't everyone in agreement from a creationist POV?

Same reason Gould and Dawkins could never agree on the punctuationalism issue. People don't share the same line of reasoning on every issue.

 

BTW, I'd say that the whole "the devil mixes the truth with lies, so does evolution" issue is a bit of a strain if you want direct Biblical suport for it. However, it is a fact that any appealing lie has a bit of truth to it, otherwise it wouldn't be appealing.

[Richard 1]

Do you think this definition is erronious? My understanding of pressures against an organism (natural selection) fall into this specific definition. From my point of view there are many pressures on every organism that it must overcome to continue surviving. Whether these forces are simply the forces of nature such as hot and cold or what I call intelligently designed pressures such as the instinctual actions of other organisms in the hunter vs. hunted scenario. These alltogether are the selective pressures every organism faces.

There is no question that such pressures are incapable of promoting the arising of novelty to overcome such pressures. They are simply pressures that eliminate organisms that are incapable of overcomming them. Now when it comes to elimination of less fit variations that arise from the intelligently designed reproductive mechanism of variability this appears to be a very realistic understanding. If creatures are born with debilitating defects then they would logically not survive as long as another that does not suffer the same defects right?

Does my understand essentially fit with yours? if not how does it differ.

 

My parents (YEC's) asserted that satan caused the effects he did by the mixing of truth with lies to give the lies believability. Would the mixing of the concept of random mutation (the lie) with natural selection (the truth) be an example of this same logic?

 

KBC, I would be interested in your take on the OP.

[Ron 10]

They just do that to cover all the "life found a way" bases! lol

Natural selection doesn't pressure something to evolve, It only eliminates when the organism isn't fit. Natural selection itself isn't even a cause, rather it is an effect.

I find this quite comical, as the word “selection” is a noun. And as defined, a selection is the “cause” that results in an effect it caused (look up the definition for selection). Therefore, if your evolutionist friend’s definition is correct, then evolutions “natural selection” is an oxymoron. Do these guys get their information from Bizarro World?

[KBC id 3]

KBC, I would be interested in your take on the OP.

My humblist apologies for not respecting your thread. The fact is I have nothing to argue against your point. I so agree with your point that I feel it is not stated hard enough if that makes any sense to you.

 

When we read the headline "

"Cambrian Predator Had Modern Eyes"

 

The actual fact is that the predator has better than modern eyes and I am betting this predator doesn't have the inverted cone problem evolutionists face. Isn't it wonderous how the nature god was able to create something so well right off the bat that it had to scale it back a bit in the decendants....lol.

 

It absolutely amazes me that anyone can look at the progression and attempt to infer "it evolved". How bout this gem "evolution got it right the first time". My question is does evolution also make people insane enough to believe that such evidence is the result of random mutation? Then I would say they are very evolved people compared to me.

 

I have seen evidence for quite some time that is not rational from a darwinian POV. From what I have seen alone there is enough of this type of evidence that someone should start a thread to collect all the various evidences just like this and see how many pages could be filled.

 

So you wanted my take on the OP?

[Ron 10]

Here’s the MAIN problem with the evolutionists argument FOR the evolution of the eye:

 

First – They claim, by stacking several diverse eyes side-by-side, then postulate that the eye “evolved” from a “spot”, through the series of eyes (as they, themselves arranged them) to the “modern version” of the eyes today. And somehow this proves that the eye evolved.

Second – They do this with ABSOLUTELY no empirical gradual transitional forms evidenced to fit in-between those series of eyes (that they, themselves arranged). In other words, they are working totally ‘a priori’ from imagination!

Third – Using the evolutionist’s logic, I can place in arrangement: a skate-board, a tricycle, a bicycle with training wheels, a one speed bicycle, a multispeed bicycle, a mini-bike , a dirt bike, a small cc street bike, a Harley Hogg, a Volkswagen beetle, a Lincoln Continental, a Box Van, a Tri-axle truck, a locomotive, a Boing 747, a space shuttle (etc…) and claim the evolution of human transportation!

Conclusion: The space shuttle evolved from the skateboard via naturalistic means!

Does anyone else see the absurdness of this?

[KBC id 3]

I can place in arrangement: a skate-board, a tricycle, a bicycle with training wheels, a one speed bicycle, a multispeed bicycle, a mini-bike , a dirt bike, a small cc street bike, a Harley Hogg, a Volkswagen beetle, a Lincoln Continental, a Box Van, a Tri-axle truck, a locomotive, a Boing 747, a space shuttle (etc…) and claim the evolution of human transportation!

Well I for one know that all these things share the same fundamental building blocks so if all the variations in life can arise from a specifiable set of building blocks then a space shuttle can miraculously arise from a skateboard. I'm gonna go out now and see if any new parts are forming on my bike... maybe it will lose its pedals by having them recruited into a small motor. might even give that illusion of irreducible complexity people are noticing.

[Ron 10]

 

I can place in arrangement: a skate-board, a tricycle, a bicycle with training wheels, a one speed bicycle, a multispeed bicycle, a mini-bike , a dirt bike, a small cc street bike, a Harley Hogg, a Volkswagen beetle, a Lincoln Continental, a Box Van, a Tri-axle truck, a locomotive, a Boing 747, a space shuttle (etc…) and claim the evolution of human transportation!

 

Well I for one know that all these things share the same fundamental building blocks so if all the variations in life can arise from a specifiable set of building blocks then a space shuttle can miraculously arise from a skateboard. I'm gonna go out now and see if any new parts are forming on my bike... maybe it will lose its pedals by having them recruited into a small motor. might even give that illusion of irreducible complexity people are noticing.

 

 

Indeed, and let me know if you find any, and we'll both make our first Billion Dollars each.

[MarkForbes 167]

Hahahaha! I always ask my evo friends, if they think random mutations are always so good, why don't they tell the doctor to leave the lead shield off their gonads the next time they get an X-Ray.

 

 

When they fail to give you an example of good mutation, they usually resort to statements that "most mutations are neutral". Of course they fail to demonstrate that a sequence of mutations can lead to new functional organs at all.

[Richard 1]

When they fail to give you an example of good mutation, they usually resort to statements that "most mutations are neutral". Of course they fail to demonstrate that a sequence of mutations can lead to new functional organs at all.

 

Right! Which makes evolution even more improbable. If most mutations are neutral offering no benefit and some are out right deleterious, that doesn't leave but a few positive mutations to develop all these wonderfully complex systems we see in life, and this must happen on a large enough scale to have a breeding population. This was "Haldane's Dilemma" and he gave evolution all the most favorable circumstances, but there just were not enough beneficial mutations to explain the diversity of life or the gap between man and the animals.

[KBC id 3]

When they fail to give you an example of good mutation, they usually resort to statements that "most mutations are neutral".

Now here is a decent question. a million of a certain form of life have a specific manner of operation and then one has a "good mutation" that is simply neutral ok.... So how does a neutral variation remain to reproduce? If there is no advantage there would be nothing to cause it to be kept right? Most evo's promote that a variation becomes more likely to occur based on the number of them existing and the length of time they keep reproducing. No advantage would keep the neutral variation from becoming more extensive in the population.

A further question would be how many species do we see that have neutral variations that are observably different from the rest of that species? My understanding is that you can't infer something as possible unless you can show evidence that it can happen in that manner.

 

Here is a further simple question, how many fossils in the record can be pointed to that show a small genetic variation that was eliminating something previously because it was better?