Why Do I Have To Wear Glasses If Eyes Are So Well Designed?

[Log]

If you cannot account for the chemistry upon which the eye depends for function at the cellular level on Darwinian grounds - and you can't - then anything else you bring to bear on the topic is naught but obfuscation and bluster. IOW the gross physical anatomy of the eye is the least of your worries.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I want to see the whole chain of organisms - from the initial single-celled organism to the current state of affairs, accounting for each mutation, selection event, and lateral gene transfer (and a full Darwinian account for that which was transferred). Then, and only then, shall I concede that "the real answer of course, is that the two eye forms evolved in different ways (and probably several times). Since both worked sufficiently well, they were both selected for and retained."

Until then, I view your literally nonsensical claim as just a "wishful speculation," no matter the source or the degrees behind the claimant.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

It is a bioelectrical response to light.

http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm

[poulsenll]

You have to wear glasses because some smart guy invented spectacles.

from Wikipedia

1284 to 1285 - While historians are not certain about who invented the actual spectacle device and when, they have been able to pinpoint the late 13th century as the likely time-frame. Whether the mystery man behind one of the most impactive inventions of all time was a monk, scientist, jewelry artisan, or layman, historians are certain of one fact -- he was an Italian!

Prior to this time those who had poor vision were marginalized by society because of their poor survival characteristics and therefore had limitted prospect of reproduction and therefore the gene distribution was minimal.

for example

1776 - In the late 1700's, you practically had to be President to obtain a pair of eyeglasses in America! From one prominent American to another, astronomer David Rittenhouse, gave a pair of reading glasses he personally crafted to then-General George Washington. It's hard to lead the troops if you can't see where you're going!

As eyeglasses became more available to the common man, the gene started to spread and today it affects a large majority of the population in first world countries.

So if someone had not invented glasses, you either would not be here or you would probably not have been born with this defective gene.

Larry P

Edited April 17, 2012 by poulsenll

[CV75]

I was talking earlier to a Optometrist friend of mine and he was saying how wonderful the human eyeball was and I would agree it is but yet I wear glasses mine weren't designed so well. I have terrible eyesight and would be a bumbling maniac stumbling everywhere without them. So if eyes were so well designed why do we wear glasses and have all these vision problems? both of my parents wear glasses but me father got his because of a youthful accident so bad eyesight comes through my Mum

Maybe you're like this guy:

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/john/9/3#3

[selek1]

That is one way to look at the issue, I guess. Another way to look at it is that the Almighty thought more of his octopus than he did his humans.

That's not surprising. I think more of the octupus than I do of many posters,

Of course using the "efficiency" of eye design as a yard stick for God's esteem or affection is rather arbitrary and more than a little tendentious.

It assumes (without justification) that eye function is the penultimate reason for existence, rather than a very small facet.

It also ignores the very real ways in which most humans (and many posters) are superior to the octopus.

The real answer of course, is that the two eye forms evolved in different ways (and probably several times). Since both worked sufficiently well, they were both selected for and retained.

The real answer is that Heavenly Father designed and equpped us- human, octopus, and critic alike- to best fulfill the functions ordained in his plan.

As someone put it tongue in cheek earlier, it's all Eve's fault. If it hadn't been for that apple...

More accurately (and less inflammatory) is the reality that man is given weaknesses, infirmities, and death as a condition of mortality.

These "flaws" in the design are deliberate and intentional- designed to ensure that we return to the manufacturer for the penultimate upgrade...

So....bordering on blasphemy here....consider that God is kinda like Microsoft- without the evil world domination impulses.

[Pahoran]

That is one way to look at the issue, I guess. Another way to look at it is that the Almighty thought more of his octopus than he did his humans.

The real answer of course, is that the two eye forms evolved in different ways (and probably several times). Since both worked sufficiently well, they were both selected for and retained.

Mariner (or is it Foxtrot?)

I believe you when you say you are a scientist. Because I have observed that whenever we ask a scientist "Why is it so?" he invariably responds by explaining how it works.

The last paragraph is nothing but a "Just So Story." It purports to explain something but really only asserts it.

What do you mean, "made without evidence"? There is evidence for eye evolution up and down pretty much the entire the phylogenetic scale. If you are not aware of this evidence, then I suggest you do some research on the subject before simply asserting magic.

More perceptive people recognise that your Just So Story is itself "simply asserting magic." When you claim that an animal cell -- a blind collocation of biochemical reactions inside a membrane -- has the inherent ability to transform itself into something that can work with millions of other such cells in order to collect visual data and pass it on to the brain -- then you are "simply asserting magic."

Now this is just a suggestion, but I think it might be about time you stopped chanting your "magic" mantra in order to marginalise everyone who lacks your devout religious faith in the power of science.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

Log and Pahoran,

You really need to start thinking of scientists as your friends. Without us, you would certainly not be having this little internet exchange. You would probably be engaged hunting or perhaps in farming, theft or piracy, simply to keep from starving to death.

In any case, there are much simpler “just so stories” of evolution at work in the development of sensory systems. You should be able to understand at least one or two of these. If you can, then there will be no need for you to claim that these sensory capabilities are no different from magic as you have done with sensing of light.

Human eyes are sensitive to the photons with energies in that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that lies between about 1.5 and 3.5 eV, corresponding to a wavelength of something between about 0.8 and 0.4 microns. It is pretty clear that the ability to focus and sense electromagnetic radiation in this energy range confers an evolutionary advantage on those animals that possess it.

At much lower frequencies the electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic field become decoupled and can be sensed separately. Unlike light vision, detection of weak, low frequency or static electric and magnetic fields is a sensory capability that is not shared by most species, and certainly not by most vertebrates.

The “just so story” of how these senses evolved, and why they were developed and retained by some members of a given species and were never developed (or were developed and lost) by others, makes a strong case for evolution and is extremely difficult for creationists to explain (if indeed they are even aware of these sensory systems).

Unlike your failure to understand cells that work co-operatively to enable light vision, magneto-sensitivity in lower animals is dead easy to understand.

Certain bacteria can synthesize a form of iron oxide called magnetite. As its name implies, particles of this mineral form small magnets. The bacteria synthesize these to act like miniature bar magnets and use them to distinguish their orientation in relation to the Earth’s magnetic field and to navigate through it (mainly in two dimensions - up and down). www.calpoly.edu/~rfrankel/mtbcalpoly.html

Moving up the phylogenetic scale, salmon create magnetite crystals and use the magnetotactic (mechanical) input to their nervous system for orientation in long distance migrations. There are any number of references for the use of magnetite by salmon, including www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/55912339.pdf. Please note that Dr. Kirschvink, et al. have shown that this system operates independently of vision and electroreception.

Moving on up to mammals, the Siberian hamster is capable of magneto reception and uses this ability to find food caches in the Siberian winter when it is mostly dark and landmarks are obscured by snow. Unless it comes from Siberia, and is only a generation or two from wild, your kid’s pet hamster does not have this capability.

Then of course, there is electroreception. Elasmobranches such as sharks and rays have very finely honed electroreceptor sense organs called the ampullae of Lorenzini . These can detect weak electric fields associated with prey animals, some of which attempt to escape detection by partial burial in bottom sand. Sharks can detect and track electric fields in the nV/cm range.

Teleosts and other fish have different types of electroreceptors, most of which operate by capacitive coupling with the external field. Surely you will not argue that capacitive coupling or the motion of a magnet in an external magnetic field are magic.

Dolphins are another species in which certain subspecies possess electroreception while others do not. Among the various aquatic species that exhibit electroreception, it is used for such tasks as prey location, obstacle avoidance in the dark or in turbid waters, navigation and communication.

Magnetoreception and electroreception are great examples of sensory capabilities that are based on a variety of well-understood transduction mechanisms and were evolved / retained by species or subspecies on which they confer a survival advantage in a specific ecological niche. This is exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. If you don’t like evolution as an explanation for these widely distributed sensory mechanisms then you are left with (sorry to say this) magic.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

Hi Mariner,

Your lengthy post does not provide the evidence for your claim that was requested, but it does supply plenty of bluster and obfuscation.

As I said it would.

But this is particularly funny:

The “just so story” of how these senses evolved... makes a strong case for evolution.

My pejorative definition of magic is appealing to processes or entities which are materially insufficient to bring about a certain phenomenon as explanations for that phenomenon - and you are indeed appealing to magic. Just so.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[Mariner]

Hi Mariner,

Your lengthy post does not provide the evidence for your claim that was requested, but it does supply plenty of bluster and obfuscation.

As I said it would.

But this is particularly funny:

Log,

Please note that I put the term "just so story" in quotes because that was the term you used to describe a scientific explanation and I wanted to make sure you weren't confused.

What I provided were scientific explanations for two sensory systems that, in fact, have clearly evolved several times in different species, and provided evidence for these receptors in two species.

To keep it short, I didn't get into bird navigation by magneto-receptors because, well, these receptors are located in the eye, an organ for which you seem to have severe lack of understanding or even appreciation.

I provided the magneto-reception and electro-reception explanations in terms that most grade school students could understand.

If you really don't understand them, then you need to spend more time reading science and less time sniping at it.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

Log,

Please note that I put the term "just so story" in quotes because that was the term you used to describe a scientific explanation and I wanted to make sure you weren't confused.

What I provided were scientific explanations for two sensory systems that, in fact, have clearly evolved several times in different species. To keep it short, I didn't get into bird navigation by magneto-receptors because, well, these receptors are located in the eye, an organ for which you seem to have severe lack of understanding or even appreciation.

I provided the magneto-reception and electro-reception explanations in terms that most grade school students could understand.

If you really don't understand them, then you need to spend more time reading and less time sniping at science.

Hi Mariner

What part of my post is so difficult to understand? I shall repeat it for you.

If you cannot account for the chemistry upon which the eye depends for function at the cellular level on Darwinian grounds - and you can't - then anything else you bring to bear on the topic is naught but obfuscation and bluster. IOW the gross physical anatomy of the eye is the least of your worries.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I want to see the whole chain of organisms - from the initial single-celled organism to the current state of affairs, accounting for each mutation, selection event, and lateral gene transfer (and a full Darwinian account for that which was transferred). Then, and only then, shall I concede that "the real answer of course, is that the two eye forms evolved in different ways (and probably several times). Since both worked sufficiently well, they were both selected for and retained."

Until then, I view your literally nonsensical claim as just a "wishful speculation," no matter the source or the degrees behind the claimant.

Evidence for your assertion is required of you. Provide it, or concede you don't have it.

"Just so" stories do not suffice as evidence. Bluster and obfuscation also do not suffice.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Once there was a man who lived in a house. One day there was a flood. The water level increased. The mans neighbors told him to come with them. The man said no; How do I know the waters will not stop rising?. The water level increased. So the man went to his second level in his house. Some more of his neighbors came by in a boat saying come with us. He said no; how do the waters will not stop? It continued to flood higher, and then climbed on his roof. Several men in a helicopter came flying by and said come with us. The man said no; How do I know the flood won't stop? The man drowned because his need for extraordinary evidence.

[blackstrap]

Finally,the light comes on. The eyes of different creatures evolved in different ways for different reasons because,well it's obvious,they exist therefore they evolved.Now it is clear.

[shalamabobbi]

Some members then (as even now) used the statement to claim that the church rejects the theory of evolution. Hence, a year later, the First Presidency, in their regular column in the Improvement Era, "Priesthood Quorums' Table," stated the following: "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God" (pp. 43—44, document A, appendix). Clearly, if the 1909 statement is mentioned, the 1910 clarification should also be quoted. Subsequent statements agree with the ideas presented in these two documents.

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=609

IMHO the reason the issue is left alone by the church as an official stance/position is the same reason the mods don't like these protracted debates on this forum. It leads to heated argumentation and division. This isn't a science forum (if that weren't obvious enough).

The offensiveness of the theory is it's denial of God as a creator (and/or parent of the human race). It is analogous to the LDS theology in rejecting creation ex-nihilo and how that is received by the broader modern non-LDS Christian community. They view our rejection as a snub upon the Creator and His powers. The same idea can be applied to the idea of creation via a slow process rather than the "formed as an adobe" (BY) or direct offspring (in physical form as well as spirit - spiritual per JFS or prior to fallen, temporary immortality). It is seen by some members as a snub upon the powers of our Father. Of course if we are the direct children of God in body as well as spirit, that is a greater snub yet. "Look at the wonders of God's creation" say the ID crowd. "Nah", answers heavenly Father and Mother, "we just..", well you get the idea.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097

http://blog.beliefne...teven-peck.html

http://markii.wordpr...r-of-evolution/

Edited April 18, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with God using Evolution to Create everything. IOW The Scriptures tell me WHY God did it, and Science tells me the HOW.

[seriously honestly]

It's all Eve's fault. If she hadn't eaten that apple...

Ah, but God didn't kick them out until adam partook....so really, it's kinda his fault.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

altersteve:

Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

Brigham Young

Yes it is...

[Mariner]

Hi Mariner,

Your lengthy post does not provide the evidence for your claim that was requested, but it does supply plenty of bluster and obfuscation.

As I said it would.

But this is particularly funny:

My pejorative definition of magic is appealing to processes or entities which are materially insufficient to bring about a certain phenomenon as explanations for that phenomenon - and you are indeed appealing to magic. Just so.

Log,

thesometimesaint provided a great response to your several posts above regarding evolution of the eye. If you require the level of detailed evidence you describe in order to select science over magic, then I guess you will just have to stick with magic.

Those who may be swayed by your rhetoric should understand that hypothesis evaluation and selection in science, and especially hypothesis selection in the biological sciences, depends a great deal on probability and weight of evidence and comparison of relative explanatory power.

We are fortunate to have these effective rules and guidelines for selecting one hypothesis over another, given the available evidence. Too bad you seem unwilling to avail yourself of them. Available evidence supporting the hypothesis that the eye has evolved more than once is very strong. If I thought you would even bother to look at them, I would provide some references for you here.

You apparently do not understand that the sciences of biology and genetics work, and work well, without a detailed knowledge of every bit of minutia related to a given hypothesis. The methods and math that underpin scientific evidence evaluation criteria such as probability, weight of evidence and properly applied statistical analysis, allow us to gain understanding, manipulate the physical world, and in doing so, make progress.

Science is able to do this without knowledge of every detail of every genetic mutation in the last several million or years that lead to the development of the two basic eye designs I mentioned. (In fact, I am sure you know this and that you are just playing to the home crowd here.)

However, if you really require information on every genetic mutation leading from an eye spot to an eye over several million years before you accept the science as more than a “just so story”, then I guess you will just have to remain a creationist.

BTW I am currently living in a country where religion is deemed more important than science and creationism is taught in the schools. Most days I spend some time, often an hour or more, trying to bring the some of the locals who work with me and for me here up to speed on a few basic science concepts so that they can be more effective employees.

Some of them are eager to learn and pick it up quite quickly. A few of them sound just like you. It is unlikely that these latter individuals will be working here much longer. They will be much happier when they go back to simply fishing and praying five times a day. So will I.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Happiness is a good thing, and a paycheck sure helps with that happiness.

[Log]

Log,

thesometimesaint provided a great response to your several posts above regarding evolution of the eye. If you require the level of detailed evidence you describe in order to select science over magic, then I guess you will just have to stick with magic.

Mariner,

It is apparent you cannot discern the difference between evidence - what was requested - and "just so" stories - what you and TSS provided.

You have literally appealed to magic - a process causally insufficient on its face to explain the result it is supposed to explain - to explain biology. I'm uninterested in your posturing, obfuscation, and bluster.

By the way, I sincerely doubt that planes will fall out of the sky, that antibiotics will cease working, and that gravity will suddenly reverse itself, should everyone concede that the evolutionary hypothesis was generated without sufficient evidence to justify it, that it is in principle unfalsifiable, that it has never been observed to do the wonderful things attributed to it, and neither can it do those wonderful things on information-theoretical grounds.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

Further;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

But why listen to actual scientists when there is a fake controversy to stoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Log]

TSS:

If "just so" is good enough for you, then ... "more" "power" to you, I guess. In any event, you have a touching faith in scientists.

Incidentally, have you, personally, ever read Darwin's Black Box?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

I don't have faith in scientists. They are mortal humans like everyone else. I put my faith elsewhere. I can however demonstrate that the Scientific Method works.

[Log]

Log:

I don't have faith in scientists.

I'm applying the duck test - if it quacks like a duck, &c.

I can however demonstrate that the Scientific Method works.

Where did anyone say the "Scientific Method" does not "work?"

Again, have you, personally, ever read Darwin's Black Box?

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician. I take aspirin when I get a headache. That doesn't make me a medical doctor.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper" Evolution is testable as the links I've already provided demonstrate.

Yes I have. It is still nonsense,

http://www.talkorigi...ehe/review.html

Edited April 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

Log:

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician. I take aspirin when I get a headache. That doesn't make me a medical doctor.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper" Evolution is testable as the links I've already provided demonstrate.

Here's an interesting question I have not gotten a straight answer out of you yet for years on: what is the logical negation of evolutionary theory?

Yes I have. It is still nonsense,

http://www.talkorigi...ehe/review.html

You show no evidence of having read it, beyond the mere assertion of having read it, of course, which is why I ask. Did you understand it? What was the central argument of the book?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log