HOW did we/animals develop eyes?

Originally posted by drew hempel
Actually the keen insight of the book "In the Blink of an Eye" by Dr. Andrew Parker is that original vision worked through

"quantum diffraction gradients"

which is the same way a c.d. makes a rainbow -- it's from the micro notches that reflect and refract light at different wavelengths.

Do note that in my profile I list my location as "infinite rainbows"

Only on the "quantum" level light is measured as frequency -- the energy intensity -- not wavelength -- it's later converted back to classical amplitude as wavelength -- based on the specific probabilities of the technological construct -- the parameters of measurement.

In science this is called the "time-frequency uncertainty principle."

Then that is the limit of a physical eye in their definition or because they have a disability to know anything beyond time -- where there is no time.

Time is meaningless; therefore, their theory of time will never be a scientific proof or law.

Better to consider what we consider ordinary time. In ordinary time there is the ordinal measurements. Without such measurements, then time is meaningless is in ordinary sense.

This thread describes the physical evolution of the physical eye.

I can hint that beyond the physical eye, for any sense of of an eye, is sense and emotions themselves in either organized and disorganization formation that can't be described by any space-time dimension.

Yes, some of us can see, sense, feel, and control this to know it for a fact. Don't expect us to prove it. You don't have to believe me. =) Q.E.D.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Natural process of evolution != governed by the theory of evolution
[edit on 13-2-2010 by dzonatas]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What I pointed out was the fact that evolution and The Theory of Evolution are not the same thing. One is a proven and known process, the other is a Scientific Theory. Scientific Theories don't govern anything, they explain things. Laws would be more akin to governing things.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Court of Law != nature or mother earth
[edit on 13-2-2010 by dzonatas]

My point was that irreducible complexity holds no water as a "principle" or even as science at all.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What I pointed out was the fact that evolution and The Theory of Evolution are not the same thing. One is a proven and known process, the other is a Scientific Theory. Scientific Theories don't govern anything, they explain things. Laws would be more akin to governing things.

Too often I have found people use such theory as if they can dictate how nature works, or at least in that theme while one person ridicules another for their stated phenomenon.

I'm pretty sure that homo-sapiens have not figured out all that there is to know about nature, and even if there is anything close to such knowledge there is still much division of that knowledge by simple means of separation of powers, and knowledge is power.

In fact, there hasn't been a known and proven process to say homo-sapiens is the only evolution path of humans. There, quite often, do people mix humanoids with homo-sapiens, which becomes the root cause to much confusion over evolution.

reply to post by dzonatas


"Evolution path"? Eh? Homo Sapiens is human.

Originally posted by dzonatas
In fact, there hasn't been a known and proven process to say homo-sapiens is the only evolution path of humans. There, quite often, do people mix humanoids with homo-sapiens, which becomes the root cause to much confusion over evolution.

To further my point:

About the only thing human on a homo-sapien is the skin and bones.

We be lucky if we can save the human race.

reply to post by dzonatas


Everything you say doesn't make sense. Is English not your first language, or are you being incoherent on purpose?

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Everything you say doesn't make sense. Is English not your first language, or are you being incoherent on purpose?

Your question doesn't make any sense. Have you not graduated from High School, or are you able to debate something you don't understand?

Whatever it is, your question had nothing to do with the topic. Maybe you should read my thread about how your 3rd eye can't see your brain.

reply to post by PieKeeper


dzonatas engaged me in a lengthy U2U conversation showing that he/she/it doesn't understand the (lack of) difference between the words "Human" and "Homo sapiens", and the difference between those words and "humanoid". I'd give up if I were you. According to dzonatas, apparently dictionaries don't mean a thing, science can go jump off a cliff, and words can be used any way anyone wants to use them, all without issue, with everyone magically understanding their intended meaning.

So if you value your sanity, and not having a headache, I'd let it lie. The ignorance is strong with this one.

reply to post by dzonatas


You bang on about being off-topic, then in your attack you bring up your post on an undemonstrated "third eye"? You are a strange one, that's for sure.

Reply to Several Posts by the OP

Greetings, Nventual. There are now at least five posts on the thread that explain correctly how living things developed eyes: [1] [2] [3] [4] and even [5] one with a diagram. However, it seems your problem is not with the mechanical process of evolution but what made eyes evolve in the first place.

I just don't understand how it formed in the first place since it had to have known (light) existed to create (an eye) to view it.

Well, no. That's not necessary at all. If you think about what you're saying, you'll realize you're implying that evolution is a process that has a will behind it, and is taking place for a purpose.

There is no will behind evolution, and it has no purpose. It just looks that way.

If a mutant of a previously blind species of flatworm is born with light-sensitive patches on its body, this happens by accident; nobody wills it. But the light-sensitive patches may help the flatworm avoid predators. Maybe the worm stops moving when there's a change in the light level, such as may be caused when the predator swims over it, and stops creating disturbances in the water by which the predator finds its prey. Then the predator will pass over it, and find another flatworm--a blind one, obviously--to eat. The light-sensitive flatworm survives, and goes on to have light-sensitive children. They, too, are good at avoiding predators, and go on to have light-sensitive progeny in their turn. Meanwhile, the predators are eating up all the easy, blind prey. In the end only the light-sensitive ones are left.

None of this happens because the flatworm 'knew' there was light available for the sensing. Other flatworms may, for all we know, have developed radio-sensitive patches, but they were useless because there was no reproductive advantage to them, and those flatworms just got eaten at the same rate as non-radio-sensitive flatworms. No flatworms ever went on to evolve radar.

The other obstacle to your understanding seems to be a kind of visual chauvinism.

How is sonar going to show someone the universe? How is sound or smell going to show these things? It isn't.

Why not? Why do you think an adequate mental representation of the world cannot be built up from sound or touch or taste or smell? Of course it can. A bat constructs a 3D representation of the world from sound alone. The representation is so accurate the bat can find its way unerringly in a dark cave full of irregular surfaces, hard projections, stalagmites and stalactites, without bumping into any of them or into other bats. It can find tiny insects flying through the air and devour them. The bat hardly uses its eyes at all--but it obviously has a sonic representation of the world that works just as well for it as a visual representation of the world works for people. The universe, for a bat, is sonic, not visual.

A duckbill platypus swims with its eyes, ears and nostrils shut. Its representation of the underwater world in which it lives is made up largely of electrical impulses originating in the muscles of the other creatures with which it shares its pond. It uses this 'myoelectric sense' to hunt its prey. To do that, it must be creating an electric representation of the surrounding environment. The universe, for a playpus, is electric.*

You mustn't make the mistake of thinking that reality is what we see (or what we hear, taste, smell and touch). Reality is something very different. We don't actually know what it looks like; our eyes play us false. Solid objects are really mostly empty space. Matter is made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles, which are made up of quarks, which are made up of... you see? Down the rabbit-hole we go, and even if the hole has a bottom (that is, if there is some fundamental, 'really real' level of reality), it is forever beyond the reach of our senses. The representation of the world we get from our senses (all our senses, not just sight) is just an abstraction, an image or model of what is ultimately unknowable. This model is inside our brains, not in the world outside, and it has evolved along with us. If we had evolved differently, the world would seem very different to us.

reply to post by Astyanax


Really nice post, Astyanax

I've tried to get that same point across in threads before; that evolution isn't a consciously "willed" event but random mutations that in some circumstances, like the possible roundworm example, help that particular generation of animal survive better than others of its kind.

Usually met with the same sort of, "But how do they get it to happen..."