14th December 2005, 1:47 PM
lmao you're comparing a primate to a squid!?
what the hell are you talking about...? You're the one claiming that there is no guided intelligence in evolution, only random mutation and natural selection which means that the evolution of eyes in animal doesn't apply to your theory and strengthens mine.
So tell me then, if there's no 'guided' intelligence in nature, why do all predatory mammals have the same eye structure with slight differences that are directly linked to their territories? Tigers have the same eye that we do with the same blind spot and the added plus of being able to absorb more light to see in the dark and cancel most of it if needed. But aside from that all predatory mammals have stereoscopic 3-D vision with eyes facing forward. All herbivore mammals have eyes to the side so that they have a full 360 range of sight.
Now which is more logical:
Animal needs to judge distance when stalking and hunting so nature gives them 3-D vision at the cost of having a larger scope of vision, since most predators are not prey, the balance is perfect. Pretyed animals develop 360 eyesight to watch out for those stereoscopic hunters.
or
DNA constantly changes the position of the eye on the skull until the animal survives, and all mammalian predators and prey just happened to all mutate along the same lines at around the same time.
When we look at a squid, we can tell this animal is predatory however its eyes are on the side and are incredibly large for the animal's size. Could this be because of mutation? Or because the animal is prey and predator simultaneously and lives at ocean depth where it could be attacked from any 3-D direction and hunt in any 3-D direction (as opposed to mammals having a much more simplified plane)?
Now cephalopods have been around since Earth got pregnant with life, it has a super-complex brain and a dynamic body that makes it perfect for ocean dwelling. Cephalopods never wanted to explore what was beyond the ocean probably because they were first introduced in to the ecosystem when there was no land available on earth and went through hundreds of millions, billions of years of evolution without the ideal of land so to introduce that idea now (within the last few hundred million years) would mean that the animal would have to go through extensive changes, meaning that a 'perfected' animal would become very weak in a new environment.
Some octopi will travel up on land to explore and look for any mollusks that might be sun bathing or looking for new homes but only does so in bursts since once it's out of the water it becomes cognitive jelly. In order to be a better suited land animal, it would have to lose its perfect ocean dwelling body - it chooses to stay in the water 99.99% of it's life so evolution never steps in to make it more land-based (such as adding internal bone structure or an exoskeleton).
You say that i'm not taking 'time' in to account but you're clearly not taking the scope of all living things in to account. To say that every animal on the planet is caused by random mutation is idiotic.
What your theory suggests is that a wolf will eventually become every color of the rainbow and will eventually find a color that best suits a high survival rate, but in reality there are grey, white, black and brown and this has never changed nor has it been recorded at all of a wolf who is purple or orange, and all these colors also represent an area - the brown wolves are found in forests, the black wolves primarily hunted at night (and had the eyes to prove it), grey and white can be found in arctic or snowy regions.
If there were good sources of food on the beaches for wolves, they would eventually become yellow or orange and gain stronger jaws for cracking open shells and webbed feet for swimming or digging through sand. And your belief says that they would reach that outcome by way of mutation over time when in fact mutation is the effect, not the cause. It still needs a direction to some end of finite possibilities otherwise the wolf would go through stages where it has a weaker jaw, stronger jaw, shorter teeth, longer teeth, shorter limbs, sturdier limbs, heavier bone structure, lighter bone structure, etc. But it doesn't do that, it evolves in one direction and progressively develops towards a goal and that goal is based on what the animal needs to survive and if it keeps pushing in the direction it wants to go the body will conform to its demands either on a chemical scale or by giving the future generations a better suited body through evolution and the conscious will to survive in any given situation.
I was hoping you would actually go out and do the research, but the reason why there are animals who take on the look and shape of plants is because plants are alive and made of living cells. When you live on a plant, use it as cover, mate, hide your larvae or eggs, etc, in or on the plant the DNA of the animal can 'pick-up' DNA from the plant on a molecular level. This might sound absurd to you but remember that even something as simple as a gecko interacts with molecules in order to stick to surfaces with hairs so small they create new paradigms of molecules allowing the gecko to effectively become one with the object its touching.
the color of the animal can be expressed through natural selection, the white wolves tend to survive better in snowy areas. But it doesn't explain how that animal became white. The answer is in the cellular makeup of all living things that will interact with it's environment and 'pick-up' traits from it causing the larger billion-celled organism to take on th traits of its environment (DNA is a molecule in every cell in case you forgot). If you're always hiding or sleeping in tree cover, your bright orange and yellow fur that looks like sand might take on darker shadow-spots because over time, the sun light hitting the body will do so in patterns as you hide behind the objects, causing the leopard to gain spots that look like leaves, Zebras to look like grass (as well as tigers) fish to look like coral etc etc. The outcome of the new patterns and designs is dictated by the animal - will it be used for hiding to stalk prey, will it be used to hide from predators, or will it be used to attract mates (or any combination). All the cells are doing are mimicking the surrounding environment in order to create an organism that best suits the environment. In the case of something like a peacock, you have sexual evolution. The same can be found in finches and billions of other creatures. The brighter the colors or the larger the features, the healthier that animal is, the more the opposite sex of the species is willing to mate with it. Sexual evolution is why gene pools become so strong because animals (including humans) are more attracted to a healthy animal - the healthier it is, the more attractive it is. Hence the difference between curly hair and healthy hair.
Now I had an undertstanding of these principals going in to the argument but you refused to do any research and blindly spouted off nonsense. I was just hoping you would take the enitiative and find the answers instead of making them up with crazy robot head theories. :D I dont like telling people "no, it's this way." so instead what I do is lace the conversation with ideas that get the participants to go out and find the answers but unfortunately you never did so so now i'm in the "This is how it is" mode which completely destroys the act of communicating and expressionism of ideals which is the only reason I talk to people in the first place.
Please please please, go out and do the research, there have been millions of people hundreds of times more educated than both of us put together who have devoted their lives in to the understanding of one subject and recorded all their findings so people like us can learn about how things work instead of just making things up.
Quote:You claim, if I get this right... ...continuing down a "chain" from merely a photosensitive cell to a fully working eye makes no sense. This assumes only one thing is evolved at a time or something.
what the hell are you talking about...? You're the one claiming that there is no guided intelligence in evolution, only random mutation and natural selection which means that the evolution of eyes in animal doesn't apply to your theory and strengthens mine.
So tell me then, if there's no 'guided' intelligence in nature, why do all predatory mammals have the same eye structure with slight differences that are directly linked to their territories? Tigers have the same eye that we do with the same blind spot and the added plus of being able to absorb more light to see in the dark and cancel most of it if needed. But aside from that all predatory mammals have stereoscopic 3-D vision with eyes facing forward. All herbivore mammals have eyes to the side so that they have a full 360 range of sight.
Now which is more logical:
Animal needs to judge distance when stalking and hunting so nature gives them 3-D vision at the cost of having a larger scope of vision, since most predators are not prey, the balance is perfect. Pretyed animals develop 360 eyesight to watch out for those stereoscopic hunters.
or
DNA constantly changes the position of the eye on the skull until the animal survives, and all mammalian predators and prey just happened to all mutate along the same lines at around the same time.
When we look at a squid, we can tell this animal is predatory however its eyes are on the side and are incredibly large for the animal's size. Could this be because of mutation? Or because the animal is prey and predator simultaneously and lives at ocean depth where it could be attacked from any 3-D direction and hunt in any 3-D direction (as opposed to mammals having a much more simplified plane)?
Now cephalopods have been around since Earth got pregnant with life, it has a super-complex brain and a dynamic body that makes it perfect for ocean dwelling. Cephalopods never wanted to explore what was beyond the ocean probably because they were first introduced in to the ecosystem when there was no land available on earth and went through hundreds of millions, billions of years of evolution without the ideal of land so to introduce that idea now (within the last few hundred million years) would mean that the animal would have to go through extensive changes, meaning that a 'perfected' animal would become very weak in a new environment.
Some octopi will travel up on land to explore and look for any mollusks that might be sun bathing or looking for new homes but only does so in bursts since once it's out of the water it becomes cognitive jelly. In order to be a better suited land animal, it would have to lose its perfect ocean dwelling body - it chooses to stay in the water 99.99% of it's life so evolution never steps in to make it more land-based (such as adding internal bone structure or an exoskeleton).
You say that i'm not taking 'time' in to account but you're clearly not taking the scope of all living things in to account. To say that every animal on the planet is caused by random mutation is idiotic.
What your theory suggests is that a wolf will eventually become every color of the rainbow and will eventually find a color that best suits a high survival rate, but in reality there are grey, white, black and brown and this has never changed nor has it been recorded at all of a wolf who is purple or orange, and all these colors also represent an area - the brown wolves are found in forests, the black wolves primarily hunted at night (and had the eyes to prove it), grey and white can be found in arctic or snowy regions.
If there were good sources of food on the beaches for wolves, they would eventually become yellow or orange and gain stronger jaws for cracking open shells and webbed feet for swimming or digging through sand. And your belief says that they would reach that outcome by way of mutation over time when in fact mutation is the effect, not the cause. It still needs a direction to some end of finite possibilities otherwise the wolf would go through stages where it has a weaker jaw, stronger jaw, shorter teeth, longer teeth, shorter limbs, sturdier limbs, heavier bone structure, lighter bone structure, etc. But it doesn't do that, it evolves in one direction and progressively develops towards a goal and that goal is based on what the animal needs to survive and if it keeps pushing in the direction it wants to go the body will conform to its demands either on a chemical scale or by giving the future generations a better suited body through evolution and the conscious will to survive in any given situation.
I was hoping you would actually go out and do the research, but the reason why there are animals who take on the look and shape of plants is because plants are alive and made of living cells. When you live on a plant, use it as cover, mate, hide your larvae or eggs, etc, in or on the plant the DNA of the animal can 'pick-up' DNA from the plant on a molecular level. This might sound absurd to you but remember that even something as simple as a gecko interacts with molecules in order to stick to surfaces with hairs so small they create new paradigms of molecules allowing the gecko to effectively become one with the object its touching.
the color of the animal can be expressed through natural selection, the white wolves tend to survive better in snowy areas. But it doesn't explain how that animal became white. The answer is in the cellular makeup of all living things that will interact with it's environment and 'pick-up' traits from it causing the larger billion-celled organism to take on th traits of its environment (DNA is a molecule in every cell in case you forgot). If you're always hiding or sleeping in tree cover, your bright orange and yellow fur that looks like sand might take on darker shadow-spots because over time, the sun light hitting the body will do so in patterns as you hide behind the objects, causing the leopard to gain spots that look like leaves, Zebras to look like grass (as well as tigers) fish to look like coral etc etc. The outcome of the new patterns and designs is dictated by the animal - will it be used for hiding to stalk prey, will it be used to hide from predators, or will it be used to attract mates (or any combination). All the cells are doing are mimicking the surrounding environment in order to create an organism that best suits the environment. In the case of something like a peacock, you have sexual evolution. The same can be found in finches and billions of other creatures. The brighter the colors or the larger the features, the healthier that animal is, the more the opposite sex of the species is willing to mate with it. Sexual evolution is why gene pools become so strong because animals (including humans) are more attracted to a healthy animal - the healthier it is, the more attractive it is. Hence the difference between curly hair and healthy hair.
Now I had an undertstanding of these principals going in to the argument but you refused to do any research and blindly spouted off nonsense. I was just hoping you would take the enitiative and find the answers instead of making them up with crazy robot head theories. :D I dont like telling people "no, it's this way." so instead what I do is lace the conversation with ideas that get the participants to go out and find the answers but unfortunately you never did so so now i'm in the "This is how it is" mode which completely destroys the act of communicating and expressionism of ideals which is the only reason I talk to people in the first place.
Please please please, go out and do the research, there have been millions of people hundreds of times more educated than both of us put together who have devoted their lives in to the understanding of one subject and recorded all their findings so people like us can learn about how things work instead of just making things up.