there must be more to it

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"Again. I am only addressing Eco's question about evolution.

Not abiogenesis, which I readily admit we don't know much about at this time. Neo & Vash, you are confusing the two concepts."

I assure you I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I was addressing Eco's original post:

"how could something so amazing have 'just happened'? there has to be someone or something behind the creation of man. how is it possible that we are just here by accident?"

go back and re-read the whole thing. Nowhere does she mention evolution. She refers to taking a biology course, which includes the study of abiogenesis.

Neo, shut the hell up. You do NOT know more than me on this subject, you have, what, barely an undergrad degree?

Eco's question about HOW something like this could happen is most certainly about evolution. She doesn't need to be specific, its b/c she doesn't understand either. But unlike you, at least she's not pretending to understand. Dumb kid, go reread your textbooks.

[Mish]

It's interesting that when Big Bang theory was suggested at first by a Russian cosmologist and a Belgian Roman Catholic priest / physicist it went against Einstein's theory of static / unchanging univesre and wasn't easily accepted until more evidence was found to support it. Many in the scientific community thought that the work of the catholic priest was too much leading towards an act of creation ofthe universe with a "Big Bang". Now that this theory is more widely recognised in scientific communities it's very strange that Christians and other theists seem to reject it instead of promoting it.

Anyway the question:

"Do we see because we have eyes or do we have eyes because we need to see?"

Is very old, it goes back to the time of Plato and before. Noone can yet answer it.

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Neo, shut the hell up. You do NOT know more than me on this subject, you have, what, barely an undergrad degree?"

wtf is wrong with the females of LF? You all are acting like b*tches lately. Show me where I said I know more than you. This is not the first time you've told me to shut up after you misinterpreted what I said. Don't get pissy with me b/c I corrected you.

edit: not all of you. A few have been cool like Misombra and lesa.

"Eco's question about HOW something like this could happen is most certainly about evolution. She doesn't need to be specific, its b/c she doesn't understand either. But unlike you, at least she's not pretending to understand. Dumb kid, go reread your textbooks."

no shit her question relates to evolution, Sherlock. However, the scope of her question also pertains to how life originated. If you explain to her how evolution works, then she'll just ask how life got here in the first place since both seem like equally improbable events to her. F*ck off with your poor reading comprehension and condescending tone.

[IndiReloaded]

Anyway the question:

"Do we see because we have eyes or do we have eyes because we need to see?"

Is very old, it goes back to the time of Plato and before. Noone can yet answer it.

You are also getting concepts confused, Mish. I agree, we don't know much about our *origins*, but the question you posed, at least from a biological standpoint, is understood. We see b/c we have eyes.

The HOW as to our eyes, however, is b/c those creatures who expressed the traits for such (an early eye, or something like) enjoyed a survival advantage. "Need" doesn't come into it. Read about Lamarkism if you want to understand this seemly subtle, but important distinction.

Actually, those vids I posted explain this also. Mbe you should take a look also when you have time.

[Mish]

The HOW as to our eyes, however, is b/c those creatures who expressed the traits for such (an early eye, or something like) enjoyed a survival advantage. "Need" doesn't come into it. Read about Lamarkism if you want to understand this seemly subtle, but important distinction.

Not saying this is true of false because we don't really know at this stage. But saying this raises a whole range of other questions. For example, why did the creatures with eyes enjoy a survival advantage? The answer is simple, eyes give a function of seeing. Meaning seeing is a need for survival of most animals and without it most would die out. Which once again leads us to the same question:

"Do we see because we have eyes or do we have eyes because we need to see?"

The first suggests that we have forms in which we play no role, but only follow, until we get a new form and then our functions change. The second suggests we have functions which we need to develop and forms come about to fulfil these functions. The answer most likely is somewhere between the two.

[Lipp]

For example, why did the creatures with eyes enjoy a survival advantage? The answer is simple, eyes give a function of seeing. Meaning seeing is a need for survival of most animals and without it most would die out. Which once again leads us to the same question:

It's an advantage that cancels out non-seeing creatures. Not a need for survival.

There are still plenty of organisms around without vision that thrive, or that substitute regular seeing with other senses.

The second suggests we have functions which we need to develop and forms come about to fulfil these functions.

And isn't this essentially the basis for that that our functions are shaped by the conditions that we live in? If so Im all for it.

[vashti]

Not abiogenesis, which I readily admit we don't know much about at this time. Neo & Vash, you are confusing the two concepts..

No, I don't think so. I am fine with evolution, which is what neo's post was talking about, and my statement was pointing out that evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis.

Since you admit science doesn't know much about abiogenesis, then I suppose a physician knows as much as anyone else does.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Some people are starting to get their feathers ruffled.

[IndiReloaded]

no shit her question relates to evolution, Sherlock. However, the scope of her question also pertains to how life originated. If you explain to her how evolution works, then she'll just ask how life got here in the first place since both seem like equally improbable events to her. F*ck off with your poor reading comprehension and condescending tone.

You were the one who told me to go back & reread what I understood better than you from the first. But thank you for admitting her question does relate to evolution. I was quite clear about my points, unlike you. And yes, I do know more than you. Sorry, that's not condescending, just the way it is on this one.

[Mish]

It's an advantage that cancels out non-seeing creatures. Not a need for survival.

There are still plenty of organisms around without vision that thrive, or that substitute regular seeing with other senses.

Organisms may not need vision to survive, but animals do. There are very few blind animals that can survive without vision. And even these blind animals have eyes. Meaning that vision had to come about (Breathing is another example).

And isn't this essentially the basis for that our functions are shaped by the conditions that we live in? If so Im all for it.

Definetly. But when used in discussions about the origins it becomes a chicken or the egg question. Which one came first the function or the form? You see, that's why it's a complicated question. The function is there because of the form, but the form is there because of the function.

[IndiReloaded]

Not saying this is true of false because we don't really know at this stage.

Well, as much as we can actually *know* anything, we have some pretty convincing data on the mechanics of evolution. We can reproduce it artificially in the lab, now. I've explained how it works according to what I know to be true.

Do a search for things like "in vitro selection", Mish. You'll find it interesting.

[IndiReloaded]

Organisms may not need vision to survive, but animals do. There are very few blind animals that can survive without vision. And even these blind animals have eyes. Meaning that vision had to come about (Breathing is another example).

All animals also had gills at some point, also Mish. That's what comparative anatomy says, anyway. I'm not sure I'm following your point tho. The fact that an animal had gills doesn't mean they *needed* them. In fact, a lot of the building blocks for many things in biology have multiple functions, what looks like a gill might have been for something else. There are some nice studies in Drosophila (flies) looking at this.

[IndiReloaded]

The second suggests we have functions which we need to develop and forms come about to fulfil these functions.

This is absolutely NOT how evolution works. Whoever said this has got it completely backwards.

Watch the vids guys. You are missing something important.

[Gribble]

We have eyes because our sightless ancestors died out. The mutant freaks who developed photoreceptive cells survived to reproduce.

[IndiReloaded]

We have eyes because our site-less ancestors died out. The mutant freaks who developed ocular sensitivity survived to reproduce.

Thank you Gribble.

[Mish]

Read about Lamarkism if you want to understand this seemly subtle, but important distinction.

I had a quick look at Jean-Baptiste Lamarck theory of soft inheritance and I didn't really find justification of first over the second. The example of the Giraffes is used often in Lamarckism. Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks.

So basically what it means there were high trees and longer necks were needed to reach them. So over a period of time via function (I suppose continous stretching of necks) and soft inheritance longer necks were developed to fulfil that need of reaching the higher branches. Meaning if the trees weren't high (i.e. if there was no need for longer necks) then longer necks would not have been developed. The form followed function in this particular example.