Level of Proof for Evolution

(Q) said:
The eye, having evolved many times over, has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span from when it first becomes a photo receptor.
Click to expand...
Whoops, I think you mean 250.000.000 years (about half the zoophyte evolutionary span).
 
Hmm, ok but that restricts the original evolution of the "eye", to the end of the Pleistocene...?

I guess it depends how far back you can see something you can call an "eye". Considering there were mammals and dinosaurs who had eyes (or sockets for them), I'd go at least as far back as the Cretaceous. Then I guess fish had eyes, that's further back. Didn't it all start back in the Cambrian? When did eukaryotes show up?
 
Neither of those links says anything about 250.000 years for the evolution of any eye, except in a computer model. The model is based on various assumptions about initial conditions and the number of generations (iterations) needed to "evolve a good camera eye" , i.e. with a "lens" of some kind.

Eyes are things in animals, not computer models, or did that detail slip past?
 
Last edited:
And he didn't say it was 250,000 years ago that the first photo-receptor appeared. He said since the first photo-receptor appeared, it took approximately 250,000 years to evolve into what we would call an eye.
 
(Q) said:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml
Click to expand...
Thank you for the references. Unfortunately the full paper costs $30 or more. However, reading around the edges this sounds like a questionable conclusion based upon over simple assumptions. (I kept thinking about the Club of Rome.) It is most certainly not conclusive, though without reading the full paper I won't go so far as to call it flaky.
 
I don't think the research is flaky or flawed (the model is probably as accurate as they can make it). But the connection to evolution in the actual fossil record is the "flaky" bit, or there's an assumed relevance that isn't really there.

It's interesting, but not bone-rattling. It supports the theory that eyes have evolved multiple times, since it can occur rapidly in the model (0.25m years is rapid), therefore eyes must be multiply advantageous (lots of different genomes have "had a go" at evolving eyes).

The way it was presented was the fuzzy bit - there was certainly an implication that "the eye" is only that old, or something.
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
Neither of those links says anything about 250.000 years for the evolution of any eye, except in a computer model. The model is based on various assumptions about initial conditions and the number of generations (iterations) needed to "evolve a good camera eye" , i.e. with a "lens" of some kind.

Eyes are things in animals, not computer models, or did that detail slip past?
Click to expand...

You are confusing the timespan in which the eye evolved with how long ago it evolved..
 
Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?

Have you read the post just before your 2c worth? In which the issue is discussed again (the eye and the computer model)?
I'm not confused about the subject. Thanks all the same for the advice.

P.S. Can you elaborate on "the evolution of the eye". Shouldn't that be "evolution of eyes"?
There is no "the eye".
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?
Click to expand...

I knew what he meant.. :shrug:

Actually, I think it's pretty clear he meant that:
Q said:
has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span
Click to expand...
 
to have evolved over a 250,000 year span
Click to expand...
Which means, over an interval of so many years, the eye evolved?
Or it means it takes so many years for "the eye" to evolve"?
Did this happen so many years ago, or a lot further back?

Clear as. No need to qualify "over a 250,000 year span" at all. It's obvious what is
meant.

Can you, speaking of clarification, qualify what you meant with "the eye"?
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
Which means, over an interval of so many years, the eye evolved?
Or it means it takes so many years for "the eye" to evolve"?
Did this happen so many years ago, or a lot further back?

Clear as. No need to qualify "over a 250,000 year span" at all. It's obvious what is
meant.

Can you, speaking of clarification, qualify what you meant with "the eye"?
Click to expand...

Who me ? I never made the statement..
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?

Have you read the post just before your 2c worth? In which the issue is discussed again (the eye and the computer model)?
I'm not confused about the subject. Thanks all the same for the advice.

P.S. Can you elaborate on "the evolution of the eye". Shouldn't that be "evolution of eyes"?
There is no "the eye".
Click to expand...

How long did it take for nitpicking to evolve ? If you attend a lecture concerning the structure of the eye, do you "correct" the lecturer and tell him that he should be talking about eyes ? Surely everyone knows that "the eye" represents eyes of a particular class ,if so specified, or structures common to all eyes.

I get the impression that you are overly concerned with abstraction as you seem to use that word so often. In real life we do not continually remind ourselves that the apple we are eating is an abstraction, and the eye with which we see it as an abstraction and so on. Such fine dinstinctions are in the province of philosophy; most of us take a break from it now and then. This discussion is about evolution.
 
Enmos said:
Are you kidding ? You practically gave the answer yourself..
If it didn't feel good why would we have sex ?
Click to expand...

Myles said:
We wouldn't do it if it didn't feel good and we would not be here to talk about it.
Click to expand...

:)- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner?

Well this is an interesting turn of events. If you cannot see the problems with this whole thing then...you just cannot see it. That is called indoctrination, for to not even acknowledge the validity of my queries is frightening.
 
John99 said:
:)- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner?

Well this is an interesting turn of events. If you cannot see the problems with this whole thing then...you just cannot see it. That is called indoctrination, for to not even acknowledge the validity of my queries is frightening.
Click to expand...

Uh... no offense but I suggest you read up on evolution before continuing in this thread..
 
John99 said:
Oh dont worry i am not offended. If we acknowledge certain things then we can better understand them and make adjustments accordingly. The longer we are here the more we need to adjust.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr/20070425News006.asp

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007/02/brain-surgeon-challenges-darwinism.html

Finally,

http://www.discovery.org/a/2611
Click to expand...

I looked at the first like and found that Marshall is re-cycling old, refuted arguments. He is talking of complexity but without allowing for it to develop over millions of years. This is the type of thing one hears from doorknockers.

Is it a co-incidence that he changed his views three years after converting to Christianity ? I think not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top