31. Muscles of the Eye and Blind Cave Dwellers
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The page begins below.
Oculomotor Muscles that Move the Eyeballs, and Blind Cave Dwellers
The fact that there are blind cave dwellers is certainly fascinating. So I decided to write an analytical paper on the questions I discussed with my opponent; I mean didn’t discuss. At first glance, blind cave dwellers might seem to be tremendous evidence in favor of evolution. I had always thought they were. As an evolutionaut, blind cave dwellers were only one of several convincing pieces of evidence in favor of evolution. Really thinking about these blind organisms can bring some surprising conclusions. Blind cave dwellers and oculomotor muscle systems may seem like a strange combination to place in one chapter, but these have also been the most popular combination with my previous writing. Why tempt fate? So here goes my analysis of these two entities, the oculomotor (eye-movement) system, and blind cave dwellers. s own as I requested. He couldn’t play devil’s advocate with his belief system, not even for a moment. So I figured I had to do his thinking for him, as is always the case with evolutionauts. Evolutionauts accept. They don’t think skeptically, because doing so would damage their belief system. I really don’t like speaking in generalities like this, but that’s the way they are. They are in the box, and can’t look outside. They think everyone who doesn’t believe in their belief system are fuckwits, morons, or IDiots at best. I know this seems like a broad generalization, but this point is fact. I have discussed and debated evolution with hundreds of evolutionauts. I often ask them to think of why I might say they are wrong, even though I realize they would disagree with what I am trying to get them to think. I have never found one that could even consider or conjure up a point they think I might make. It’s simply too threatening to them.
Oculomotor Muscles That Move the Eye
A great challenge for evolution without intelligence is the vertebrate oculomotor system: the six muscles that rotate the eyeballs. Exactly how did those muscles arise and in what order? Exactly how were oculomotor nerves hooked up to just the exactly correct location in the brain and the exact corresponding eye muscles that they operate? How did the oculomotor nerves get there in the first place? Did the origin points of all six of the muscles attach first? Then did the muscles evolve and grow to reach the insertion points on the eyeballs? Or did all six begin their evolutionary growth somewhere between the origin and insertion points, then grow in each direction, attaching at the origin and insertion points at the same time? What mutations would program the brain and teach it to operate those six muscles, an incredibly complex task ignored by the evo-illusionists? There are so many more questions I have about evolution and the oculomotor system. But these are certainly sufficient. An evolutionaut’s one-dimensional answer to these questions are almost always, “Natural Selection did it. Next question?” Or, “You don’t understand how evolution works!” I say, “But wait a minute”, which falls on deaf ears. They are usually on to some other subject for obvious reasons. Evolutionauts have to cover and protect their belief system. They cannot be good scientists; otherwise, their immense belief system would come crashing down.
Evolution has no answers for the questions that arise about the formation of any bio-system. These questions pose an immense roadblock for evolution, only one of the thousands of roadblocks that evolution must deal with for it to be considered a respected science; at least by humble little me. The conundrums I pose about the oculomotor system are sloughed off and ignored, just as all questions about all bio-systems that evolution must answer are. So, let’s take a thoughtful look at the vertebrate six-muscled eyeball movement system.
The oculomotor muscles are astounding in their design. The problem solving that these six muscles represent is nothing short of astounding. The superior rectus and inferior rectus pull the eyeball up and down. The lateral rectus and medial rectus pull it right and left. The superior oblique travels through a lubricated pulley (can you believe
a lubricated pulley?) so it can do its task properly. The pulley changes the direction of pull nearly 180 degrees. The oblique muscles are there to tilt the eyeball. As we humans walk, we tend to tilt our heads slightly right and left. If we were looking at a horizon when walking, we would see the horizon tilt right and left, which would be dizzying. The obliques tilt the eye right and left to compensate and keep the horizon completely level. Lucky for us we don’t notice at all the right and left tilt. We don’t get nauseated like we would be on a ship in heavy seas. When a ship tilts a bit too much for the obliques to compensate, seasickness sets in. If it wasn’t for the obliques, we would be seasick all the time. Of course, there is the old, “Which came first, the woodpecker or the egg?” question. The pulley? The superior oblique? I would love to see how just these two entities actually evolved, and in what order. about all bio-systems that evolution must answer are. So, let’s take a thoughtful look at the vertebrate six-muscled eyeball movement system.
The oculomotor muscles have another important job. The retina needs a blood supply. In the front of the retina are tiny blood vessels that feed the upper layers; the ones that get hit by light first. These blood vessels are not nearly as numerous as the ones in the back of the retina. If they were, they would block most incoming light, and we would have no vision. But, as thin and spread out as these blood vessels are, they still block light coming into the retina. To compensate for this problem, the eye is in a constant jiggling mode. Ocular microtremor (OMT) is a constant, physiological, high-frequency low amplitude eye tremor. It occurs even when the eye seems completely still. Studies have shown that visual processes deteriorate rapidly in the absence of retinal image motion caused by microtremor.(3). It is thought that this slight tremor allows the retina (pictured left ) to “see” around the blood vessels that block the retina. The brain is able to read the difference between the parts of the image that are static (the blood vessels), and those that are moving, the images that are coming from outside of the eye. The brain can then construct an image without the spider-web-like blockage that it would have if there was no tremor. I really don’t think natural selection could think all of this amazing technology up. How can anyone think it could?
I have some questions for evolution regarding the oculomotor muscles:
1. Did all six muscles evolve at the same time? This would, of course, have required planning and intelligence. Nerves and programming would have had to arise at the same time as the six muscles; otherwise, the system of eye movement would have been useless and would not have been “selected for”. The fact that this scenario would require planning and intelligence eliminates this as an evolutionary possibility. With evolution there cannot be real intelligence or design. Only “apparent design”, whatever that is.
2. Did each part of the eyeball movement system evolve independently? On its own? For evolution to be true, this scenario would have to have been the selected modus operandi. But, sadly for evolution, this scenario is also not a choice. An evolved single eye muscle unconnected to a motor nerve would be useless. Further, it would have been initially uncontrollable, as there would be no program to operate the muscle. If the muscles that make the eye rotate upward were first to evolve, the eyes of the poor victim/owner would have been permanently stuck in an “up” position. Each eye muscle needs an opposer so the eyeball can be moved back to its original position. The “up” muscle needs a “down”. So, this isn’t really a choice either. Evolutionauts say that each evolutionary step has a use and purpose, and that supposedly gets them by the “one part at a time” problem. But trying to make up uses for ea
What other choices are there for evolution’s formation of the oculomotor system? “All at once”, and “one at a time” are all I can think of. Are there more?ch muscle and nerve of the oculomotor system is out of the range of rationality. Of course, intermediate uses would have to be thought up for each part of the body of vertebrates, each nerve, each bone, each……which doesn’t even qualify as an absurd notion.
3. Did the medial rectus eye muscles evolve at the same time as the lateral rectus? Could only the right eye move initially until the left eye evolved the same muscle used by the right? Imagine the awful situation species would be in with one movable eye. Vision would be horrible. Evolutionauts cite “bilateral symmetry” as their answer to this problem. Which is another non-answer. But they really don’t know the answer to this one. No one does. Two exact mirror image muscles forming on the right and left eyeballs should take a bit of planning. Of course evolutionauts are certain they have this problem covered. They don’t.
4. Of course we still have the conundrum of, did the eyeball movement system arise in a single species which then spread the device to all other eyed species? This isn’t a choice either because of the fact that organisms can only procreate with their own species. Eye movement systems would be rare. There should be a large number species with fixed eyes. It’s unthinkable that oculomotor systems would show up in 100% of all vertebrates. But, unfortunately for evolution, that is the case. So, the problem is ignored. Just imagine how incredibly impossible it would be for an eyeball to randomly evolve in a species. Then the eyeball had to free itself up so it could be a rotating ball, as described in chapter 12. Then oculomotor system would have had to evolve. When ev-illusionists discuss how vision evolved, they only discuss eyeballs. They never discuss the optic nerve, visual cortex, code, or the oculomotor system. With each additional entity evolving through natural selection the miracles pile one on top of the other, and get more and more preposterous. Evolution says it has mountains of evidence. They should be honest and call it mountains of miracles. Because that is what it is.
5. If eyeball movement systems couldn’t have evolved in a single species, then spread to all eyed species, that leaves the only other possibility: they must have evolved in thousands of species at about the same time. What are the odds that identical eye movement systems could evolve in multiple species at the same time? I say zero. The same odds as that for the evolution of eyes, a visual cortex, optic nerve, and code. Zero.
6. Further, why are there not multiple designs in multiple species? Why are there not some vertebrate species with nine oculomotor muscles? Why not some with three? Why not some with none? Why not deer with fixed eyes because the muscle system that would move them didn’t reach deer? That is what evolution should show. But it fails again and again.
7. Early in the evolution of eyes, were there lots of vertebrate species or their ancestors with eyeballs that were fixed, then the muscles came along allowing eye movement? Of course, the notion that the oculomotor muscles and the eyeballs evolved at the same time, would involve intelligence and planning; so that can’t even be considered in the light of evolution. According to the method evolution says eyes evolved, if we could go back to the time vision supposedly evolved, we should see an immense number of animals with fixed staring eyes. There
are species with partially evolved visual systems, but none with fully formed but fixed eyeballs. Why not? Evolution happily cites the partial visual systems of the Nautilus for example, but they are dead silent about the lack of fully formed fixed eyeballs that would help prove the evolution of the oculomotor system. This is the science of cherry picking.
8. Why are there no vertebrate species with fixed eyes, and extremely movable necks? Since necks can certainly change the targets of vision, one would scientifically think that would be an evolutionary choice. It isn’t. The varieties that should be present if evolution were the way nature came about are non existent. Of course there is always an exception. Owl eyes are fixed, and owls can move their heads in a huge arc. But this exception makes things even worse for evolution.
An Owl’s eyes are large which improves their ability to take in light, especially under low light conditions. In fact, owl’s eyes are not eyeballs at all. They’re more like elongated tubes. They are held in place by bony structures in the skull called Sclerotic rings. For this reason, an Owl cannot “roll” or move its eyes – that is, it can only look straight ahead! The Owl more than makes up for its fixed eye problem by being able to turn its head all the way around, and almost upside-down. It is able to achieve this by having a long and very flexible neck. The neck only looks short, as it is hidden by feathers and the Owl’s posture. An owl’s neck has 14 vertebrae, which is twice as many as humans. This allows the owl to turn its head through a range of 270 degrees measured from a forward facing position.
The problem remains for evolution that chordates, which are the precursors to vertebrates, according to evolution, evolved their vision in a 250,000-year time span some 500 million years ago. Owls didn’t show up in the fossil record until 38 to 54 million years ago. So, trying to tie the fixed eyes of owls to the original evolution of vision would be a tough call for evolutionauts. All modern birds had to have evolved before owls evolved fixed eyes. If fixed eyes came from a common ancestor, there would be multiple examples
of fixed eyes and highly movable necks. This feature is exclusive to owls, who-who must have independently and completely gotten rid of their full oculomotor muscle systems and evolved the fixed eyes and highly movable neck. They HAD to have had full oculomotor muscle systems as the common ancestor of birds certainly did. Is it imaginable that all owls initially had a full oculomotor system, and then one by one dis-evolved each and every part until all were gone? Then at some time during the dis-evolution, they evolved a fully rotating neck? Evolution’s “evidence” here is nothing but another failure. What fun!e large which improves their ability to take in light, especially under low light conditions. In fact owl’s eyes are not eyeballs at all. They’re more like elongated tubes. They are held in place by bony structures in the skull called Sclerotic rings. For this reason, an Owl cannot “roll” or move its eyes – that is, it can only look straight ahead! The Owl more than makes up for its fixed eye problem by being able to turn its head all the way around, and almost upside-down. It is able to achieve this by having a long and very flexible neck. The neck only looks short, as it is hidden by feathers and the Owl’s posture. An owl’s neck has 14 vertebrae, which is twice as many as humans. This allows the owl to turn its head through a range of 270 degrees measured from a forward facing position.
I would love it if any evolutionaut can give me some sort of answers to the questions posed above. Actually, that’s a silly question on my part. There are no answers. If I do get answers, they will range from, “Natural selection did it”, to “You have falsified what evolution says about the formation of eyes” to “You are a moron”. That’s the best they will or ever can do. Evolutionauts can’t get past the questions I pose above, so they ignore them. Or they will always do the famed evo-bypass, and try to challenge me with some other question, such as the question about blind cave dwellers. I am sorry to say that never have I found an evolutionaut that will at least recognize that evolution is missing an answer, no matter what the subject. A true thinking scientists or fan of science should at least communicate that these certainly are problems for evolution. I have yet to see even one evolutionaut admit that fact. Not one.
Blind Cave Dwellers
Evolutionauts make a huge noise about the fact that there are cave-dwelling species that have partial visual systems, and are totally blind. Supposedly their visual systems only partially evolved, or they were fully evolved, and then regressed. As is usual, evolutionauts cite this situation without the slightest thought about how or why these partially formed blind visual systems came to be in the first place; or whether blind cave dwellers may be evidence against their belief system instead of for it. Just like they say vision evolved in small steps without the slightest thought about how those steps came about. Evolution is a thoughtless science. It doesn’t take a great deal of independent thinking to demonstrate to any rational skeptic that Darwinian evolution could not possibly have formed the bio-systems of nature. So instead of rational skepticism, something all good science should demand, evolution supporters become believers, supporting the belief of evolution, declaring it is great science, and completely overlooking its impossibilities.
And, as I said, evolutionauts never think about the possible problems for evolution associated with blind partially eyed cave dwellers. So I will do their thinking for them. Interestingly, evolution focuses only on certain cave-dwellers, and not all. For example, bats are either in caves in the daytime, or out searching for insects at night. Contrary to popular myths, most bats have very good eyesight. They also have excellent echolocation; like the best Navy sonar. They do not become entangled in human hair due to their good eyesight and “sonar”. Of course, the question arises, why aren’t bats “blind as a bat” like other blind cave dwellers? In considering blind cave dwellers, good science must question the possible scenarios for the evolution of all cave dwellers. And ev-illusionists should wonder why only certain cave dwellers are blind. Evolution is not good science, and does not question. Here are the scenarios I can come up with for existence of blind cave dwellers:
Possibility #1: The ancestors of the blind cave dwellers species evolved fully formed and operational visual systems. Then they went into the caves and lost their visual systems. They initially inhabited areas that were not dark twenty four hours per day. They were able to be better predators, and avoid being prey because of their fully formed visual systems. For some reason, possibly avoidance of predation or for self protection, they moved their habitat to dark caves where eyes would not be beneficial. A very puzzling move, since their entry into the caves would initially cause them to be at an immense disadvantage. The species that entered the caves first, of course, would have a huge advantage in predation over the later ones. The newly entered species would be great fodder for more experienced cave dwellers. According to this scenario, the visual systems of species that changed their habitat to living in caves gradually dis-evolved their visual systems, after their ancestors spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving them. They did a complete one-eighty.
The information in their genomes had to have been deleted or shut down. So instead of evolution adding information to the system, it was removed. Of course, this is scientifically absurd. If I didn’t use my right arm during my lifetime, and I had a son who didn’t as well, would my grandson be born with a withered arm? Or some descendant down the road? Disuse doesn’t change genomes, any more than extra use increases it. Cave dwellers evolving blindness is completely opposite of what evolution teaches. Evolution teaches things should get more complex, and better. One would think that cave dwellers might want to make forays out of the caves in hopes of finding prey, then return back into their caves for protection. But that is not the case. The 100% blind cave dwellers are 100% blind. With this scenario, evolution had to do a complete reversal. Richard Dawkins says evolution cannot go down Mt. Improbable. If this scenario is how blind cave dwellers formed, they did go down.
Possibility #2: Cave dwellers who newly entered caves, and who still had complete visual systems could certainly have evolved the ability to see infrared. This would have given them an immense advantage over their co-inhabitants in the caves. Infra-red waves are not currently in our visual spectrum, for some unknown reason. But our soldiers certainly make good use of infra-red in the dark of night. They use infra-red sensitive “night vision “ goggles, binoculars, and gun sights. The body heat from living organisms gives off infra-red radiation that can be picked up by these devices. Could not the visual systems of cave dwellers that were more sensitive to the infra-red part of the spectrum been selected for? And, over time, shouldn’t there be a large number of cave dwellers that can see in the infra-red part of the spectrum? At least some infra-red vision seems much more likely than what we do have: totally blind species. Some mix of infra-red vision species mixed with blind species might make evolution look a bit better here. But, alas, it’s not to be. Maybe these blind cave dwellers are on their way to evolving infra-red vision. We just don’t realize it. We may be looking at a step in evolution going on right now. I doubt it.
Some evolutionauts that read this page may challenge me with, “Why didn’t the Big Intelligence form infra-red vision?” The answer, from my point of view, is I have no idea how or why vision or any other bio-system formed. Or didn’t. I have no idea what form the immense intelligence that was certainly necessary to form the incredibly devised systems of nature took. I am not defending any religious notion, or mysterious god-like creature. My purpose for this book is only to show that Evolution cannot possibly have formed all of nature; that it is a major mistake of science. Period. If mankind is ever to find an answer to the origin of species and bio-systems, evolution needs to be trashed. We need to reload.
Possibility #3: Eyeless species began using caves for their habitat before they began evolving eyes and visual systems. Weak and partial visual systems evolved, leaving the cave dwellers blind. According to this scenario, eyeless species in caves made a partial effort to evolve a visual system, but just didn’t make it because vision was never “selected for”. Caves were pitch black. Vision just wasn’t necessary. So species that entered caves completely eyeless had only partially evolved eyes because of their feeble and unnecessary attempt. Of course, this scenario goes down the drain immediately. If cave dwelling species entered the caves without even the start of a visual system, they would not have ever started evolving one. They would have been completely eyeless today. There would be no vestigial remnants whatsoever of any kind of visual system. There simply was no advantage to be “selected for”. Eyes could not have evolved in darkness, according to evolution. Since that is the case, this scenario fails quickly.
Possibility #4: Species had partially evolved visual systems, then moved their habitat into caves, so the evolutionary completion of the systems ceased. This supposedly explains the partial visual systems of blind cave dwellers. This one is also a killer for evolution. I wonder how blind species found caves in the first place. Ev-illusionists cite this scenario as proof that visual systems evolved. Here we have perfect evidence for the evolution of eyes because these cave dwellers show an intermediate stage of eye evolution. The huge problem here is these visual systems are completely blind and useless. They are no advantage to the user organism. In fact, they may be a disadvantage. The cup shaped partial eyeballs may be susceptible to infection and injury. So rather than being an advantage, they would be, if anything, a hindrance to the survival of these cave dwellers. Further, these partially evolved visual systems rendered the organisms carrying them completely blind from the point of inception to the partially evolved stage they are now in. Under this scenario, the evolution of all visual systems of all species in mid-evolution would also be blind and useless. These systems would not have the 5% vision that Richard Dawkins says would be so useful for species who were in the mid-stages of the evolution of vision.(2) The notion that 5% vision would be provided by partially evolved visual systems is certainly challenged under this scenario. Visual systems from start-up to the stage of the blind cave dwellers would be useless, and would not get “selected for”. Sorry, Eugenie.
If the eyes of a species were partially evolved when they entered the cave, these facts should be considered. Multi-celled organisms have existed for over 550 million years. According to ev-illusionists like Richard Dawkins, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger (1) it took about 250,000 years for eyes to fully evolve. That figure represents 1:2,200 chances that during the period of time the species began using caves for their habitat, they had only partially evolved eyes. Actually, the chance would be more like 1:4,000, since the eyeballs wouldn’t have been completely evolved, and it wouldn’t have needed the full 250,000 year time period because a species eye evolution would have ceased. The odds of a species starting the use of cave habitats when their eyes were say, 50% evolved is miniscule.
The blind fish and salamanders that make up blind cave dwellers have some puzzling characteristics. Experiments have been run where one population of blind fish, the Astyanax, has been mated with a different blind population of the same species. The result was that some progeny have full visual systems, and are sighted. This is explained because the mutations that cause the blindness of one group is different than the mutations that blinds another. Together they are able to build on each other genetically and make up a complete visual system. Again, this goes against the tenets of evolution. Eliminating a big chunk of DNA code because you don’t use some entity does not happen under evolution Advantages are “selected for”.
Evolutionauts proudly brag that the loss of vision must have taken millions of years to occur, of course, without the slightest proof. Our only experience with the loss of sight due to genetic malfeasance shows that blindness and partially formed visual systems can occur in one generation. And, unfortunately for evolution, the generation that follows the blind progeny will almost invariably have full visual systems and be sighted. The genetic makeup formed by combining the genetic information from a second parent with the blind parent usually results in a genetic correction. If the thousands/millions of mutations that formed blindness in cave dwellers truly did occur over millions of years as evolution claims, the species would have become a biological wrecking yard. It would have destroyed itself.
Well, these are my challenges for the evolutionauts that keep bringing up blind cave dwellers as proof of eye evolution. As I see it, they themselves have been blinded, just as the cave dwellers have been. They exist in a world of blindness, but their cave is evolution itself. They have dis-evolved the ability to be skeptical, think rationally and reason that they were born with. The source of their blindness is the ev-illusionists that taught them. They are part of a belief system; not a science. The best thing evolutionauts can do is shut up about blind cave dwellers.
- A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.
- The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, p.81, W.W. Norton Co. London 1987
3. Contributions Of Fixational Eye Movements To The Discrimination Of Briefly Presented Stimuli Michele Rucci and Gaëlle Desbordes Journal of Vision December 19, 2003 vol. 3 no. 11
Evolution: An Objective Look 
ChickenHawk110 said,
April 2, 2010 at 8:46 am
Sigh.
This is the SAME baseless assertions as with the rest of your rhetoric.
Assertions without research and testing is meaningless. I lost interest in discussing anything with you because assertions is ALL you ever offer.
What value do you REALLY believe any of your assertions, (regardless to as however proud and as triumphant that you provide them) really offer this subject?
Yawn.
Same old. Same old.
stevebee92653 said,
April 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Perfect response. Nothing. As predicted.
ChickenHawk110 said,
April 6, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Really? Nothing?
What you “predicted” was a series of ad-hominems and utter crap. You even game me a list of the ad-homs that you “predicted”.
Sigh.
This entire blog is “nothing”.
I reviewed your prior discussions with individuals far more qualified to comment than I am to comment on such complex matters of biological science.
In particular, I have noted that whenever you ask for evidence of X. You are indeed provided with evidence of X in the form of a peer reviewed research paper on precisely the topic you asked for, and, in most cases I am certain without even reviewing the paper in question, you subsequently wave that evidence away with nothing more than your personal OPINION.
Nobody likes to look ignorant of available materials now do they? Lets just pretend that you were duly aware of ALL evidence available for X all along huh?
Without the research and hard data to back it, your opinion is WORTHLESS. Nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.
You simply dont have the qualifications nor research experience to “wave away” any such papers or even full Phd thesis’s on components of the ToE.
Enjoy your blog. Enjoy your smug and proud convictions and declarations.
Baseless assertions is ALL you have, including this special chapter you created just for me regarding existent (but strangely) non-functioning visual systems on certain species.
Every proud and triumphant declaration you provide on this blog is, by its very definition, NOTHING.
Though, good for you. I am sure this lets you sleep soundly.
Congratulations on your triumph. Cya sonny.
stevebee92653 said,
April 7, 2010 at 5:51 am
Oh my gawd. Some additional nothing! Thanks for proving my point again and again. Nothing to say is usually a good answer for you evos. You can’t think for yourselves, so you depend on phony papers, other commenters and the teachers that fooled you. Sleep tight. Cya too.
PET said,
May 5, 2010 at 2:44 am
Steve,
This will be brief and to the point. For those of us that disagree with you, it seems that we have no option of rebuttal: we can’t call you out on fallacious arguments, we can’t point out factual evidence, we can’t correct you on evolutionary theory, we can’t point out previous arguments, we can’t do anything at all…because that’s “exactly what you predict we’ll do.” If we don’t agree with your arguments, how are we supposed to counter? How should this “debate” actually work? I have previously tried to provide you with volumes of relevant references and you promptly deleted them saying that “no one will ever read them.” So what do I do with you?
Here is what I will do: you want an “evolutionaut” (me) to admit that evolution can’t explain everything. Here you go, Steve: Evolution can’t explain everything. Now then, what do I mean by this? I mean that given current scientific understanding of genetics, the fossil record, and evolutionary developmental patterns of organisms, we can’t provide a nice succinct “just-so” story for you to explain every facet of every organism that has ever lived since the dawn of time. That being said, what science can do is provide means of determining this information, one piece at a time…and that’s the absolute beauty of science; science can provide testable hypotheses and quantifiable, repeatable evidence for these questions! What can you and your philosophy offer these broad, complex questions? Nothing but the usual “I have no idea how or why vision or any other bio-system formed” (your words from the above post). I can’t imagine living in a world where questions simply cannot be answered. To summarize, no, science hasn’t been able to answer all developmental questions, but for all those that it has been able to answer (quite a lot, actually), evolutionary theory provides the platform for the explanation. If another theory could account for more explanation given the same testable, repeatable hypotheses, then you would see us all abandon ship and gather around the new theory. This is how science works, Steve! It’s wonderful. But don’t hold your breath, evolutionary theory continues to support the natural evidence and it doesn’t look like that is going to change soon…not in this universe.
Cheers,
PET
stevebee92653 said,
May 5, 2010 at 6:29 am
For those of you who disagree with me, write an intelligent comment like PET just did. PET, yours is well written and one that can certainly be taken seriously. So, PET, here is my answer:
1. I don’t at all enjoy reading repeated dogma. What I mostly get is just that. Dogma that doesn’t answer ANY questions I pose. (eg. The bacterial flagellum was made by natural selection one protein at a time. We have tons of evidence. It came from a common ancestor.) These are not answers. They are fantasy/dogma spouting that I am supposed to accept as scientific answers that aren’t. And when I don’t accept, the evo-epithet list comes out: moron, idiot, IDiot,…………
2. I have plenty of evo-references in this blog. TONS. I have pages on how evos say eyes and hearts evolved. Pages on how teeth evolved. On debates that I have had with a PHD molecular biologist, a university instructor in a biology PHD program, richarddawkins.net where I “discussed” with at least ten experts at at time…….. On NatGeo (PBS) on why Darwin was right. On Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker”. On Dover and what Miller et al had to say. So you can give me references all you want. I have read most, or a very good sampling of just about every subject, and the conclusion is that they are all alike: no one knows. Try my page on peer reviewed papers. So giving me a list of peer reviewed readings is a waste of time, unless some incredible new one comes up. That will catch my interest. But that is not the case I have found. Giving me stuff to read only means to me that you don’t know the answer yourself.
3. I like an honest thoughtful answer FROM the evo-commenter, which is a rarity.
4. I pose reasons that evolution IS NOT POSSIBLE. Not just that I “think” it isn’t. It flat out isn’t. You evolutionauts are able to block out the impossibilities I pose. They have never been addressed by ANY evolutionaut. They are answered by dogma, glossing over, or epithets. If a theory IS NOT POSSIBLE, then it should be scientifically scrapped. And I do mean scientifically. Nothing to do with religion. I love science as much as anyone, and I want good science to be done. With evolution in the way, it will never be.
If you see me brush off an answer, the answer isn’t one. It is a typical “NS did everything” answer that just doesn’t fly, and is tiresome. And those I usually answer respectfully anyway until things fall apart.
I hope that answers your question.
The more we learn, the worse evolution looks, and more more dogma we get. When Darwin made his theory, cells were like miniature grapes. Evo seemed pretty plausible. Just stick these grapes together and we have animals. We now know that a cell is more complex than the space shuttle. So evo steps up the dogma and intensity when it should crash and burn. If this science was honest, it would do just that.
Cheers as well
Steve
Crapper said,
May 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm
1. You don’t enjoy reading the papers because you’re either too lazy, too stubborn, or too uneducated to understand them. These scientists would have a hard time keeping their credibility if they had to dumb each article down to a level that a denialist would understand.
2. Most of the links in your reference page have a bad URL. From what I can gather, you’re just using those sources to make yourself look credible despite almost never making references to them in your articles.
3. As one of your detractors pointed out, your concept of honest and thoughtful is any comment that agrees with you. Most of the people who disagree with you have a legitimate education that goes far beyond your blatantly phony claim of studying evolution for a few decades and then abandoning it.
4. The only things that we’ve seen you post are creationist talking points: Arguments from incredulity and ignorance, utterly meaningless probability numbers, Straw-Man presentations, and questions that are all based on faulty premises. And to consistently fail to provide an alternative theory just makes you look like another crackpot.
“I hope that answers your question.” Nope, you didn’t answer a single one.
“The more we learn, the worse evolution looks, and more more dogma we get.” No, you’re just desperate to pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. If anything in that paragraph is true then you’ll have to explain why most biologists completely ignore deniers and continue to get their work published in legitimate scientific journals.
pitman132 said,
May 7, 2010 at 2:27 am
Has a functional protein ever been formed in the lab, under ‘pre-biotic’ conditions??? And please don’t tell me about Fox, I mean protein, not jus spheres made of amino acids. If it hasn’t been formed YET, in all the vast number of experiments then I suggest the following scientific conclusion: “According to current scientific experimental evidence, protein cannot form spontaneously. The direct implications are that any theory that ASSUMES the spontaneous formation of protein should be better labelled a hypothesis, or a guess, and an implausible one at that since it is composed of impossible steps”. I know that evolution and abiogenesis are DIFFERENT subjects as any evolutionist would be happy to point out, but successive steps in evolution would require the spontaneous formation of many proteins if it is assumed that the original historic cell was ‘simple’. Foolishness does not exist beyond the purposeful denial of design that could not be more evident. The same argument can be raised about DNA. The reason why I posted this is because I have been doing allot of reading on the subjects of abiogenesis and evolution. Whenever I came to the part where protein and DNA are suppose to form I find that the evolutionist would carefully sidestep this most wonderful event and in the next few lines I’d find myself reading about the evolution of fully formed cells (bacteria). The thing is all those evolutionist do not know how either of these could have formed, but they do know that ALL experiments basically agree that they CANT FORM SPONTANEOUSLY, and yet by the shear fear of admitting the existence of a higher power, the evolutionist would go on to assume that protein formed spontaneously and then from random changes in DNA not just once but about 40000 times in the case of humans. In the mind of an intellectually honest person, the theory of evolution suffers a fatal blow from this simple argument. Oh and if you are looking for proof of the existence of a higher power, just read this again, you must have missed a couple of key points. Don’t give me any young earth arguments though because that is clearly NOT what the bible teaches.
pitman132 said,
May 7, 2010 at 3:24 am
Any one who enjoys objective thought is invited to consider the following verse found in the bible. A careful consideration of this simple analogy constitutes a disproof of the theory of evolution and/or abiogenesis. The verse is Hebrews 3:4 and it reads as follows:
“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.”
Now consider the first part, every house is built by some one. This is obviously true, but do take note that we can make substitutions without loosing the validity of the statement. For example we could say:
“For every CAR is built by someone,” Or
“For every COMPUTER is built by someone,” Or
“For every CHAIR is built by someone,” Or
“For every TEASPOON is built by someone,”
I’m confident that the point is crystal clear. Consider what the statement means from a negative perspective. If it is true that EVERY single house has a builder, then that means that there is not a single house that DOES NOT have a builder. I’m sure you think that sounds pretty simple, I do too. However, what the apostle was really saying becomes clear in the latter part of the verse…” but God is the builder of everything”. To make this point clear, before we jump to conclusions, please do consider the statements made above just one last time. The substitutions can be made by inserting anything that has the element of DESIGN. As we considered the negative of the statement above, and the subsequent statement by the apostle, we realise the real meaning which is as follows:
“Everything that has the element of DESIGN, has a DESIGNER” or “DESIGN can not arise spontaneously, without intellectual input”
Now do ask yourself please: Is it really true that design cannot arise without intellectual input? Of course it is! Evolutionists ask you to believe that it does. Consider the evolution of the eye. (I would like to shortly discuss a point that Steve touches on in his argument about the evolution of the eye, this being the ‘location’ of these wonderful organs) Since eyes were supposedly a result of RANDOM mutations, we should expect that their location would likewise be random, but it is not. Whenever we find eyes in any species, we find that, besides the exquisitely intricate manner of its internal design, the very location of the eye endows them with the element of design. Consider a car. The headlights are not just located at any random position in the front of the car (as there obviously are a number of positions that they could be in and still serve their function) but are located in the same horizontal straight line on opposite ends of the car. It is the same with the eyes. The eyes could have formed in numerous positions, and they would still be able to give the species an ad vantage, but you always find them in the same horizontal level in all species. As we have mentioned the DESIGN element that this represents, we can now think about the direct implications once again, where does this originate from? We know from the apostle’s words, or should I say God’s word, (and from ALL of our own experiences) that DESIGN does not originate spontaneously…… Again, the intellectually honest individual is left with only one conclusion: …” but God is the builder of everything”. The same argument can be made about countless other organs. Foolishness does not exist beyond the purposeful denial of design that could not be more evident.
reuven said,
August 25, 2010 at 7:09 pm
6. Why are there no species with fixed eyes, and extremely movable necks? Since necks can certainly change the targets of vision, one would scientifically think that would be an evolutionary choice. It isn’t. The varieties that should be present if evolution were the way nature came about are non existent.
There’s these things called owls with fixed eyes that can rotate their neck more than 180 degrees
stevebee92653 said,
August 25, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Well, there is an exception to everything. Check out my correction if you like.
reuven said,
August 25, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I have just shown that fixed eyes is possible, so why do you have a problem with the muscles evolving later?
Just because there are no species today that retain these features, but only ones like owls that have re-evolved it, doesn’t give us any information about whether they used to exist. In other words, just because nautilus gives us positive evidence for the evolution of eyes, doesn’t mean that a lack of modern (or fossil) examples is somehow negative evidence for evolution.
Apologies if I’m wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that many different vertebrates would have to evolve eye muscles separately. What is actually the case is that it evolved only once in the ancestor of all vertebrates and then was passed on to its descendants.
stevebee92653 said,
August 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm
That WAS an interesting exception, and one that I wasn’t aware of. It only makes things more complicated for you rather than less. I made a correction on my page, and apparently you didn’t read it.
(1) You think the precursors to owls had movable eyes, then evolution “fixed” them? Turned them into immovable tubular eyes from ball eyes? Made them so they couldn’t move when millions of years before they were movable? Why don’t you think that absurd?
(2) You think there was a single ancestor to ALL vertebrates that evolved a set of eyes/vision, then passed them on to all of its descendants? There were many species of chordates that showed up with eyes 500 MYA, so that is not a possible scenario. Plus, that single descendant had to evolve, not just eyes/vision, but ALL of the systems that their descendants had: livers, multi-chambered hearts, lungs, pancreas…..everything. Do you think everything evolved in that one single species? If you do, you believe in miracles.
(3) Nautilus isn’t good for you either. Nautilus had 500 million years to evolve eyes, but didn’t. I know you will say nautilus doesn’t NEED eyes, or some other excuse. Reality is that it didn’t evolve the eyes that most animals, including insects, have. Why? A real bad example for you that evolution tries to turn into a good one.
reuven said,
August 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm
1) The reason owl’s eyes don’t move is that they need to be specially shaped for very good sight in low light.
2)Yes, that is exactly what I think, where is the problem.
Maybe the eyes evolved before 500 MYA? Thought about that?
It did not evolve all in one species, but in a succession of species.
3)It didn’t evolve better eyes because the costs (in resources, brain power to process images, vulnerable part of anatomy etc.) were always greater than the benefits.
I’ll post some more in a bit, gtg
wolfgang said,
May 29, 2013 at 11:18 am
quote reuven
1) The reason owl’s eyes don’t move is that they need to be specially shaped for very good sight in low light.
>Ok thanks, why didn’t we think about that, owls found a complete niche for themselves, nightlife! So when they had changed their biological clock and hormone system to be nightdwellers please tell us how its supersensitive eyes worked without the eye muscles and the still fixed shorter neck. Or did it develop stiff supersensitive eyes and the long 360° spinning neck at the same time?
Why didn’t it just develop extra neurons and lots of rod cells,like foxes and cats,and then better. That should be 100 times easier and faster than rebuilding a complete anatomy.
2)Yes, that is exactly what I think, where is the problem.
Maybe the eyes evolved before 500 MYA? Thought about that?
It did not evolve all in one species, but in a succession of species.
>A succession of species is still one species. And so how they those 5 function jump over intraspecies? And which one was that that had all functions entirely terminated? It migth help explain how complexe organs came up on all branches of the philogenetic trees when that ‘succession of species’ divided into ‘other’ species.
3)It didn’t evolve better eyes because the costs (in resources, brain power to process images, vulnerable part of anatomy etc.) were always greater than the benefits.
>The nautilus did not but the owl did evolve better eyesight despite the cost of losing eye muscles and the cost of developping a longer spine and fueling additionnal brain power to process the images just to get 1or 2 mice more at night than it would have during day time.
O wait, shit while writing this I thought about the SNOW OWL that hunts at day time with the same neck and eyes. Snow owl found the day time niche back! Snow owls should be developping eyes muscles and shorter necks unnoticed (as it spends more time flying than sitting on a brench spinning its neck) ..
Rob said,
September 5, 2010 at 5:00 am
Reuven a question for you…Has any scientist ever created any new genetic information by randomly mutating existing DNA? OR has at least one new gene ever been observed in nature, by scientists? Thanks, I’m just trying to figure out what the evolutionistic community base their evidence or grounds of belief on.
Unicron said,
September 26, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Ah yes, the ever-popular creationaut canard that “mutation never adds any new genetic information.”
Answers in Genesis recently added this to their list of arguments that creationists should not use because it’s been exposed so often as completely made up.
Its biggest problem is its contextual use of “information”. People who use this argument give no explanation of what “information” is, or how to measure it.
As Aronra likes to put it: “They’ll readily state that it takes more “information” to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, but if you ask them how much more, they’ll shut right up, and if you demand to see that data that could justify how they can even make that claim in the first place, they’ll change the subject.”
Now back to your question.
Example: Nylon-eating bacteria.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
The best known example of new “information” entering a genome through natural selection. And this is just a microscopic appetizer. There are literally hundreds of thousands of examples of new genes making their way into a genome.
stevebee92653 said,
September 26, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I love nylon eating bacteria. Shows how hurtin’ you evos are for evidence. Changing nutritional habits of bacteria is certainly a great one. How about the color of a moth? What a laugh. Is the moth still a moth? Is the bacteria still a bacteria? If I eat hot dogs, which I have always hated, instead of hamburgers, I will let you know so you can add me to the list of great evo evidence.
Adrian said,
October 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“My purpose for this blog is only to show that Evolution cannot possibly have formed all of nature; that it is a major hoax, and mistake of science. Period. If we are ever to find an answer, evolution needs to be trashed. We need to reload.”
Have a better theory? ID did it its no different from saying “god did” it or “its magic”
Most of this bullshit are just arguments from ignorance.
“How did those parts of the eyes evolved? I dont know and i dont care because im too lazy to research on the volution on the eye and im even more lazy to create a plausi8ble scenario to how the eye evolved so ill will not use my brain tissue and just say that it is designed! yay!”
Then again you evade the issue, why would a ID make blind salamanders in the first place? why not infrared vision if he is intelligent and he would have foreseen that salamanders would need it? Evolution is more parsimonious on this But ID only raises more questions than it answers.
Im really glad that you point out how complex is the eye and all the parts that makes the eye function. However im not that lazy as you to assume “Its complicated i wont wear my brain tissue so ill say its designed! there solved” No, those are genuine questions that must be solved by science and alternative explanations. But no other method has been observed than NS and RM. ID doesnt explain anything and it has NEVER been observed so why dont you use your brain?
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Adrian: You couldn’t possibly look more foolish. Why do you keep banging you head on this wall.
Blind cave dwellers: p.32 Evolution of hearts, eyes, Krebs cycle, with MOUNTAINS of evidence and ACTUAL peer reviewed papers!: p.5
Adrian said,
October 2, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Nylon eating bacteria and you dumbly dismiss it by comparing it to your taste for food. If normal E.Choli cant metabolize citrate and by random mutations after thousands of generations it can, thats equal to changing hot dogs to hamburguers? Thats an example of how dumb arguments that are commonly used by IDIots can be.
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Are those bacteria still bacteria? Have the been on earth for billions of years? Do you actually have any idea if nylon eating mutations occurred and were selected in just a few years, how different those bacteria would be in billions of years? If evolution was just that easy? No, you are too gullible and naive to even consider.
MashiTags said,
November 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Well duh, of course they’re still bacteria. Evolution wouldn’t allow them to be anything else. It’s kinda like how we humans are still primates, primates are still mammals, mammals are still vertebrates and so on and so forth. And when you get to the very base in our taxonomy, we’re all still Eucaryotes because all of our cells are initially nucleic.
Sorry Steve but this is all fact, not fraud. You don’t have to like it, you just have to live with it.
stevebee92653 said,
November 13, 2010 at 7:01 pm
It’s so nice to hear evolutionauts describe nature as it is, and credit evolution for what is. You can’t possibly miss. “It’s that way because that’s the way it is. Well duh!” What fun.
IDiots said,
November 19, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Wait, people still believe some magic sky fairy created all this? Who the hell created the sky fairy then?
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Oh. That’s easy! The Sky Fairy Creator didit! Any other intelligent questions?
Alex said,
May 5, 2011 at 7:47 am
Let me start by saying that it all evolved one step at a time, and very slowly. Now I assume your question is intended to be ‘how could the eye have evolved’ rather than ‘how did it evolve’ as the latter would be unknowable. But I digress, it starts at the beginning.
1: A photoreceptive cell that sends stimuli to a brain is all you need to know whether you are in bright light, or darkness. This is a useful thing to know. As for photoreceptive cells themselves, they’re quite common in nature, and not very complex.
2: Having many photoreceptive cells inside of a concave indentation is much more useful, as it will tell you the intensity of the light, and its direction. This will become more accurate as the indentation becomes more spherical, leaving a small hole for light to enter.
3: Your eye will be less likely to become contaminated if it is covered with a transparent overgrowth.
4: The cover is easily modified into a lens by becoming thicker in certain places, making the images produced by the eye precise.
5:As for the muscles that roll the eye, it doesn’t really matter what order they evolve in, an eye that can only turn right is still more useful than an eye that can not turn.
6:Now that the eye can turn, it would be useful to have two lenses, one for things that are close, and one for things that are far, this will give you a clearer picture, and better depth perception.
I think that’s all the interesting bits really, eyes aren’t nearly as complicated as they seem.
stevebee92653 said,
May 5, 2011 at 8:09 am
Do you have any idea how complex a “light sensitive cell” really is? You couldn’t possibly and write this comment. And they can’t see light. What on earth would make all of those things you list form? How does one go from a light sensitive cell to an eyeball with optic nerve, visual cortex, and code? Because they are advantages? That makes them form by natural selection? Sorry. NS keeps herds healthy, but can’t invent shit. Your comment is made up stuff that you believe to be real science but doesn’t qualify as bad fantasy. The real laugh is your fish that can only look right. Just imagine.
jambuttons said,
February 19, 2012 at 1:53 am
Bah, I threw up, when I got to this one:
[i] The information in their genomes was also deleted. So instead of evolution adding information to the system, it was removed. The complete opposite of what evolution teaches. [/i]
You have no interest in anything besides promoting your man nailed to a plank theology.
stevebee92653 said,
February 19, 2012 at 8:16 pm
You threw up? Great! Then the page is successful!