/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11376847

Your dumb ass disproves the theory of intelligent design.

>>11376850
Explain how DNA could evolve within a span of the first 500,000 years of the universe's existence then, Einstein. The nucleotides are way too complex for simple random arrangements within thoughtless flagella.

>>11376854
>first 500,000 years of universe's existence

The big bang happened between 10-15 billion years ago.
Earth formed probably less than 5 billion years ago.
Life on earth is estimated to have arisen (note, not yet DNA) something like 3.5 billion years ago.
Sometime after that DNA as we know it appeared.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from buddy.

>>11376861
You are furthering my case. DNA is a result of intelligent design. Evolution COMES FROM intelligent design. Eye balls COME FROM intelligent design too.

>>11376862
You're just going to keep baiting with circular logic, so I'm not really going to go that in-depth, since you're here to prove a point, not to discuss or learn anything.

I will however share that the assumption you're making about whether or not primitive organisms can iterate on tiny mutations rapidly enough to end up producing DNA in a highly competitive microbial biome is completely unfounded.
Evidence, the actual evidence that we currently have on the origin of life, suggests that this process of mutation, iteration, and natural selection probably happened, and that evidence of the extant complexity that we see throughout the global ecosystem is pretty solid.

Your intelligent design hypothesis isn't invalid, but the evidence you're using to try and prove it is basically to just blanketly deny everything that would foil you, so you can shout from a mountain "YO SOMEONE DID THIS" instead of using any empirical system to be able to prove who, or what did.

>>11376869
>moving the goal post

>>11376847
I have a question. Do you have any evidence or is this just your mighty intuition guiding you to your conclusion?

Beneficial random mutations don't happen quickly enough for evolution to work.. however it's the best story we have so far. I believe we're missing a part of the puzzle

>>11376854
>how DNA could evolve within a span of the first 500,000 years of the universe's existence then, Einstein
i came up with better bait when i was barely a teenager

>>11376891
>Beneficial random mutations don't happen quickly enough for evolution to work
Source?

>>11376908
You want a link to a high quality research paper from academia that contradicts the current accepted narrative? OK

>>11376920
Or you could just give an actual argument instead of jumping straight to conspiracy theories.

>>11376920
>just trust me bro

But, in like a different kind of perspective they kind of prove it though right?

dude intelligent design lmao

>>11376854
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M
https://youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=24m

>>11376854
>the first 500,000 years of the universe's existence
Where are you pulling this number from? Kent Hovind?

>>11376847
Okay I’ll bite, the mere existence of the multiple ways organisms and visually process their environment give pretty decent evidence that eyes and become continuously more complex over the process of evolution. From the eyespots of simple cells to the mammalian eye is pretty good evidence that eyes can become optimized overtime for the environment.

>>11376933
>bro this reptile just randomly mutated, grew wings and flew bro
>woah natural selection bro

>>11377028
>"just randomly mutated"
>gradually
>over many, many generations
Yeah, because the mutations best suited for survival actually lasts long enough to leave behind offspring in nature.
The rest? Circling the great big fucking drain.

>>11377031
Explain to me how half of a wing is useful.

>>11377035
Flying squirrels? Allows them to leap from tree to tree in search of food. You also have chickens and emus, that can do short jumping flights.

>>11377035
aids walking up steep hills

>>11377028
You were supposed to provide an argument for your claim that "Beneficial random mutations don't happen quickly enough for evolution to work."

So far you've failed. Were you lying?

>>11377035
>half of a wing
That's not necessarily how it works. The first fliers were most likely gliders.
Then the ones with mutations that gave them lighter bones had an evolutionary edge the ones that didn't, and they left behind offspring. Over many generations, the lighter bone structure became hollow and gliding became rudimentary flight.

This is shitty bait and should have been covered in primary school.

>>11377035
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use/

is this like, a competitive sport for y'all? rehashing arguments from the 60s?

>>11376854
>500,000
WRONG. The earth is only 6,000 years old, so the universe can't possibly have existed for that long.

>>11377050
>random mutations kept happening that miraculously improved the wing at each step until it was more and more aerodynamic
This is what evolutards actually believe.

>>11377353
Mmm, except that not what that post said, was it?

>>11377354
That is exactly what is says when you remove the obfuscation.
It requires that "random" mutations that benefit the creatures happen regularly.

>>11376847
THe eye has evolved independently multiple times and using different optical principles. A pinhole camera eye is ridiculously easy to evolve and emerges very early on in animals.

>>11376850
You almost broke my keker.

>>11377364
Not even crab would eat that bait, son.

>>11376847
>These two things disprove the theory of evolution.

Do they? Prove it.

>>11377035
>Explain to me how half of a wing is useful.

Ever heard of gliding or thermoregulation?

>>11377364
What do you mean by "regularly?" The evolution of flight happened multiple times across populations of many individuals over millions of years.

>>11377458
Insects, bats, avians, pterosaurs, and fish are working on it.

>>11376862
intelligent design by whom

>>11376847
>These two things disprove the theory of evolution.
>pseudo scientific artist's impression of DNA
>poorly evolved vertebrate eye with veins and nerves all over the retina
Cephalopods have much better eyes and evolutionary stages have been recorded in different species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye

Fuck off retard and stop trolling.

do you have a better scientific theory that solves these problems while not creating new ones? the guys that rejected physics created string theory if you have a better scientific explanation of how life came to be then say it

>>11377484
>that pic
>all random mutations, goy!

>>11377497
Stop baiting, retard. I'm not playing your game.
Fuck off back to primary school, this is scientific board, not free educational camp, we won't do your homework.

>>11377497
Yep.
Do you have any argument that isn’t “Hur da Muh jews r controllin da weather”?

>>11377497
>all random mutations, goy!
Yes.

>>11377497
>>11377514
Okay, but let's be serious. Yes, random mutations. If it was intentional/intelligent, then some stages would have negative influence on fitness, but it would be a necessary cost to finish the project.
But it's not like that. Every single stage has a positive effect on fitness, then every stage is promoted by natural selection.
It works like this.
random mutation -> good shape -> better fitness -> reproduction
repeat
otherwise
random mutation -> bad shape -> worse fitness -> no reproduction, worse reproduction

>>11376847

Ur a fgt

>>11376847
Our eyes are incredibly shitty. Look up what saccades are.

>>11376862
and then who designed the intelligence?

>it being random means it can never happen so it never happened
Torrent a statistics book, kid.

>>11377514
This kind of thinking is why people are too afraid to challenge the status quo and why children have a better understanding of science than most PhDs.
>My incorrect age old science from a simple hypothesis and shaky data set WILL NOT BE CHALLENGED UNDER MY WATCH!!!!

>>11377752
I wasted too much time on answering trolls with real arguments.
If someone uses arguments like:
>These two things disprove the theory of evolution.
Without any evidence, explanation
or
>all random mutations, goy!
Then they're not playing fair, then why should I? Why should we feed the trolls?

If the thread was started with "I don't understand evolution, it doesn't make sense for me, can someone explain it to me?" then it would be okay to explain.

>>11377852
Over a long enough period of time any shape of living organism can occur if is beneficially fitted to the environment. A question to ask though is what length of time did DNA originally show up and how complex were the nucleotides in this period? Answering this would lead one a possibility of a universal creator entity that is intelligent.

>>11376862
>Eye balls COME FROM intelligent design too.
Eyeballs fucking suck. The nerve literally makes you partially blind because it's plugged right in the center of it. That's like making a TV with the power cord going in right through the screen. This fact alone is proof of the opposite of intelligent design; we might as well call it dumb design.

>>11377965
>A question to ask though is what length of time did DNA originally show up and how complex were the nucleotides in this period? Answering this would lead one a possibility of a universal creator
What? Which part of what I had written did you just answer?
Nucleotides were found to form out of simple organic compounds in experiments simulating early earth atmosphere and ocean. RNA and DNA in certain conditions can form spontaneously out of nucleotides, it's a polymer after all. It's only a matter of time for RNA to form self-replicating enzymes - RNA can fold creating rybozymes.
There's no magic in it, nor RNA nor DNA is a monolithic particle - it's made out of small, easily detachable and relocatable compounds.
randomly emerging RNA + having different fitness = evolution
It probably took millions of years to randomly spawn a self-replicating RNA particle and then to spawn a rybozyme translating RNA into DNA and then next millions of years to form rybosomes translating it into proteins, but it isn't impossible.
It's just a matter of time, luck and quantity - image trillions of trillions of trillions small RNA particles fusing together in the ocean, undergoing selection, making rybozymes, spawning random organic compounds.

You don't have to be smart, if there are lots of you.

if intelligent design is real then god is a fucking retard and should go back to school

>>11377528
>intelligent
>no ability to take a monotonically increasing influence on fitness

>>11378115
>intelligent
>no ability to take a monotonically increasing influence on fitness
I'm not sure what do you mean by this, explain.
Intelligent means being able to solve problems by planning.
Evolution isn't intelligent - it just takes what survives, what is temporarily temporarily beneficial, even if it'll compromise the future "design".
Example of this is leading nerves and veins on top of the retina, instead of under the retina. The later would be better, but the base "design" was temporarily good.

>>11378143
It was in disagreement with:
>If it was intentional/intelligent, then some stages would have negative influence on fitness

>>11378192
Then you're partially right, but only partially.
When we look at natural selection and evolution, we should look at all the mutations - not only those positive, but also negative.
Evolution is a process, where 9 out of 10 mutations causing change in eye design was negative, neutral or lethal, but 1 out of 10 was making an improvement.
It would be intelligent, if all 10 out of 10 mutations were good, but it's not like this. Evolution is actually a machine death, not life - likely 99% of all existing species died, the 1% left is what we see now.
Just look at this goat, lol
>>11376960

>>11378246
Seems like you're putting it in a box and shoulding over it based on how you'd do it or want to see it.
As for the goat, you go leaps and bounds to explain the tiniest details of one step to the next and justify all sorts of evolutionary connections and possible mechanisms, yet cannot think of a reason for that goat?

>>11378274
There is a reason for it: dumb evolution. You're the one who has to explain it as an intelligent choice since that's your argument.

>>11378295
A means to get rid of those who are not being active about taking care of themselves in a way to encourage productivity? Something went wrong with the typical growth because of individual situations? Got into a fight that altered the curvature?

>>11378295
To be clear, I'm not fighting for or against intelligent design, I'm fighting against poor statements in an argument or mindset and chose that one to start in this discussion.

>>11378310
>A means to get rid of those who are not being active about taking care of themselves in a way to encourage productivity?
Has nothing to do with taking care of oneself, nor do goats have the cognitive capability to understand that even if it did.

>Something went wrong with the typical growth because of individual situations?
>Got into a fight that altered the curvature?
Not a design.

>>11378313
The statement wasn't poor. It explains a key difference between evolution and design.

>>11378325
Computers are an intelligent design. Failures do not disprove that. You are assuming specific events cannot outweigh general design.

>>11378313
Even if the goat was damaged, and the defect is not caused by a random mutation, then what about polydactyly?
The gene is dominant, not recessive. Why is it so rare then?
It's a better example.

>>11376869
you can't justify a claim by faulty logic, and then say that because your claim is evident your justification, admittedly incorrect, must be correct.

you're the one using circular logic, not that guy.

>>11378338
I haven't looked into the specifics enough to have an intelligent conversation about it to be honest, but this just starts feeling like "natural selection of the gaps". You've never accepted God of the gaps arguments even if you couldn't explain the gap, as you shouldn't accept it, and this conversation is becoming no different. Take the same mindset of creative thinking to both sides.

>>11377019
eyes create such a tremendous evolutionary advantage that even rudimentary ones probably ensured survival of the mutated organism. eye improvements likely worked the same way. it's conceivable that adaptions of greater benefit spread faster because of this.

>>11378337
>Computers are an intelligent design. Failures do not disprove that.
Computers are not living beings, can't reproduce, can't emerge randomly from organic compounds and do not pass genetical information to next generations.
This argument is invalid.

>You are assuming specific events cannot outweigh general design.
Computer runtime failures are not inheritable. Some failures in lifeforms, but only those non-genetical are not inheritable, yet also drive natural selection.

>>11378355
>this argument is invalid
Intelligent design doesn't imply alive

>not inheritable
But the manufacturing process and design makes the faults "inheritable". Of course the process isn't "natural selection" but I'm sure you won't accept arguments that aren't specifically about life and living organisms, since that would be speaking specifically about intelligent design

>>11378352
>you couldn't explain the gap
What gaps? Just because something wasn't recorded, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There's nothing special in these gaps, the theory of evolution couldn't explain.

>>11376850
Lmao got em

>>11376847
They don't.
Next question.

>>11378368
The unrecorded events, or unexplainable natural processes, whatever arguments that relied on lack of understanding as "evidence" and claimed because you can't explain it then it must be whatever I want to interpret it as.

>>11378337
>Computers are an intelligent design. Failures do not disprove that.
I didn't say it's not intelligent design because of failures, I said the flaws you pointed out are not designs in the first place. You have to explain why the horn was designed that way, even though it would foresee-ably fail. Saying that it failed is not explaining the design.

>>11378337
>Computers are an intelligent design.
oh lawd ima laffin

computers are the most unintelligently designed pieces of shit this side of volvo strut mounts.

>>11378365
>Intelligent design doesn't imply alive
Then you're implying organisms are not alive.

>But the manufacturing process and design makes the faults "inheritable".
There's a fundamental difference - lifeforms bear information about their construction inside their bodies - if an organism dies, the "project" is lost forever.
Computers don't have their schematics built inside, but manufacturer keeps them - if a computer fails, nothing is lost, because the manufacturer can intelligently fix and rebuild the machine.
A bat can't look at a bird and grow feathers, every trait has to be developed separately by dumb evolution.
This argument is invalid.

>>11378389
Your rebuttle to my first point was just the goat can't comprehend that, yet they comprehend instincts
My next two points were that it is not part of the design, but specific faults that overcame the design.

>>11376847
Imagine all this intricate marvel, then you clamp, vaccinate, irradiate, circumcise, and maim it continually thereafter. It's a process of uglification. Like when you see swollen, beaded, stumpy dendritic spines and whole brain regions with rgeatly reduced arborization. You know instinctively that it's wrong. and it strikes you as ugly.

They uglify us. And yet they are allowed to continue. The medical system is yet another weapon wielded by the greatest threat to our survival.

>>11378395
Intelligent design doesn't imply alive
Intelligent design doesn't imply not alive
Are you really this dense that I have to make both statements? Should I fill in the final step for you too or can you handle that on your own, big guy?

Why are you sustaining these trolls? Don’t post and let the thread die.

>>11378412

>>11378407

You all need to start actively considering both sides of any argument with the same brain, not turning every debate into half intellectual war. I'm out and letting this conversation die. If anyone actually considered something seriously on either side, I'll call it a win. Bye

>>11378417
>You all need to start actively considering both sides of any argument with the same brain

Okay.
Intelligent design is disproven.
Evolution is proven.

>>11378417
UNclamped.
UNvaxxed.
UNfluoridated.
UNbrominated.
NON-IRRADIATED.

>>11378379
>The unrecorded events
Imagine if during an investigation you had only a few photos - one where a person would be tied by someone else, then a photo where the tied person would be dead, and then a photo where the tied person is eaten by one that tied them.
Will you assume the most plausible scenario is the one that tied and eaten the person would be the murderer, or try going all the way around to explain it in a different way? There are no traces of intelligent design - you can't find papers, schematic, an invisible hand of the creator, all you have is natural selection, random mutations, statistics and fossil records of intermediate stages. There's nothing better explaining what have actually happened, than evolution.

>unexplainable natural processes
Like? Everything we talk about here is explainable by the theory of evolution.

>>11378399
>Your rebuttle to my first point was just the goat can't comprehend that, yet they comprehend instincts
OK, and what does seeing a goat with a horn growing into its head have to do with instinct? You're also ignoring that my rebuttle was that it has nothing to do with taking care on oneself.

>My next two points were that it is not part of the design, but specific faults that overcame the design.
So something was advanced enough to design all these different animals but wasn't smart enough to see such an obvious flaw? Sounds like bullshit.

>>11376891
Beneficial random mutation models work for machine learning. There are already techniques for machine learning that let random mutations achieve "goals" (such as survival or reproduction) with relatively few permutations. This is proof that data can be evolve itself this way plenty fast enough. And ultimately, biological evolution is also a problem with data modification.

The mechanics are obviously vastly different, but it still shows at least on a basic level that randomness can surprisingly quickly be used to reach an extremely complex goal using only random mutations.

>>11378417
Consider one side has massive amounts of scientific evidence and the other has... the need to take the Bible literally.

>>11377484
>that pic
we just assume the hard part has been completed by step one right?

>>11378456
The end of a pain nerve growing a tumor that hurts when light hits it isn't that complicated, and that alone is enough to give an insanely massive benefit to survival

>>11378479
>being able to tell night and day is a massive advantage
really nigger

>>11378456
>we just assume the hard part has been completed by step one right?
Those are types of Molluscan eyes. These stages are all present among living Molluscans, you just solve it like a puzzle.
The first step isn't that hard actually - nerve fibers were all present already to sense touch. Photoreceptors are just another kind of neurons - protein responsible for detecting light could emerge from cumulative neutral mutations plus one mutation actually making it photoreceptive.

>>11378488
>being able to tell night and day is a massive advantage
>really nigger
Yes, nigger?
It lets the animal hide and informs where the surface is.

>>11378274
>Seems like you're putting it in a box and shoulding over it based on how you'd do it or want to see it.
If what I said up to now wasn't good enough for you, there's another one:

Mutations were proven to be mostly neutral or bad for fitness, while good mutations are really rare.
It can't be called intelligent if it mostly fails. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems and making mistakes 9 times out of 10 is fucking dumb. If the half of all mutations would be good, I would start considering intelligent design, if 9/10, I would be sure.
But it's fucking 1 out of 10 or even less.

>>11378488
moreso because the first light receptor definitely evolved underwater, and you would be able to tell if something just swam directly above you if you had nothing but a primitive light receptor.
Know when something swimming above you = know that a predator is about to eat your ass.

or perhaps even more simply from an evolution standpoint, if the cell did nothing but cause pain when there was no light hitting it, the organism could just use its standard pain response of fleeing, and now it will automatically flee every time a predator swims over it.

>>11378018
Octopus have way better eyeball wire management

>>11378526
>prehistoric fish had eyeballs on their backs

>>11376850
fip and bip pilled

>>11378558
The eyespots of flatworms do face upwards.

>>11376847

>>11378693
Don't post this. Christians are too stupid to look upon and comprehend images.

>>11377752
Please note that you're working from the assumption that the current accepted theory is wrong in order to prove that the current accepted theory is wrong. I'll let you figure out the problems of that on your own.

>>11378715
Add a couple of halos, a few symbolic lambs and some crosses.

>>11376847
>>11376850
You guys are both wrong. We unironically probably live in a simulation. Not even memeing.

>>11376847
>>11376854
>t.

>>11378548
>>11378018
I fucking hate the meme that octopuses somehow have superior vision to vertebrates. Here's a fucking hint, it's called "eagle eye," not "squid eye" retards.
The octopus eye has the photoreceptors in the wrong spot, and that's a fucking fact. The way octo-eyes are laid out makes it impossible to get a strong bloodflow into the photoreceptors. Im fucking possible. No nutrients means no fucking acuity. The reason eagles have such great vision in the first place is because they have a big honkin chunk of vasculature in the middle of their eye (yes, in front of the receptors). Blood. It's that important.
Then you have the fact that Muller cells actually process the light before it even gets to the receptors. All that fucking nervous tissue in front of the receptors is actually IMPROVING acuity for zero cost.
Then you have to consider the fact that the alleged downside doesn't fucking matter at all. Not one fucking bit. Your brain is more than smart enough to cancel out the blind spot. And even in cases where it is not (you lose an eye, for instance), you don't fucking use that part anyway. Peripheral vision is all but useless by design. You only care about vision in the fovea. As long as the blind spot isn't in the fovea, there's nothing of any value lost even in cases where your brain cannot account for it. It is a huge benefit for effectively zero cost.
Don't even get me started about how shitty octopus vision is for lacking cones, since that's not really part of the argument. But octopuses are blind fucking retards, while vertebrates are eagle eyed megachads.

>>11378423
Flammable.
UNflammable.
INFLAMMABLE.

Aren’t caterpillars turning themselves into goo and then transforming into a bug with wings more WTF than eye evolution?

>>11378548
Nah, the inverted retina isn't a problem because the cell layer it passes through has fiber optic properties and I forgot the advantage the inversion had but it was useful in some way

Truth is that biology and evolution are so complex and multitasking that any sort of "stray path" design flaw at the same time has evolved compensatory mechanisms that make it significantly less troublesome. And then stupid humans come in and only see one thing and think evolution is stupid.

>>11379045
Nothing compensates for giraffes having that one nerve the goes all the way down the neck and routes back up. Or the appendix.

>>11379048
I don't know what the actual problem is with that nerve (not just: it looks dumb), and the appendix is possibly used for a bacterial reservoir.

>>11378407
>>11378423
You retards need to be range banned.

>>11379051
Completely pointless. Many mammals have the recurrent laryngeal nerve, we just have very short necks. It adds a significant amount of latency as it can be up to 5 metres long.

Isn't the human eye like the biggest clusterfuck of s design that can basically only be explained as some patchwork through evolution and no one would design that way from scratch.

>>11379063
There are many such instances of this in nature, actually.

What I want to know is what christcucks think of God having created animals that experience population boom-bust cycles, or parasites, or any number of the other atrocities of nature we didn't know about in ancient Sinai. Dopamine is actually faintly neurotoxic as a parasite defense mechanism; actually, we can find evidence of an eons-long arms race between parasites and host organisms, with bigger organisms being less susceptible because they have more room for defenses.

Earth's ecosystem is not a fine tuned piece of clockwork, it is massively chaotic and self-defeating. What clock has gears whose only goal is to stop other gears from turning? What machine has parts that destroy other parts, which try their very best not to be destroyed? It makes no sense, unless you don't know about any of these things because you possess an extremely primitive understanding of ecology, like we did even just a few hundred years ago.

>>11376847
LMAO fucking idiot

>>11376850
10/10, excellent post

>>11376854
>>11376862
>i'm too dumb to understand something so therefore i'll pretend a magical sky wizard made it
As anon said, your dumb ass definitively disproves intelligent design.

>>11376861
I thought life was over 4 billion years old? And possibly close to the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth? I dunno, I just read this shit on Wikipedia, I don't really know anything

>>11376960
"IT'S ALL PART OF GOD'S PLAN"

See, the idea of god made sense when we were pre-scientific cavemen, who had no idea why the sun rose every morning.

"God" was the explanation for everything we couldn't explain. It gave people certainty. And people need certainty. It allows them to function.

>Why does the sun rise?
>God's plan
>Why is there a terrible storm?
>God's plan
>Why did our crops fail this year?
>God's plan
>Why was this child born with a horrific illness?
>God's plan

Anybody who can't see that god is a creation myth is a fucking imbecile.

I do, however, think that religion still has useful moral lessons, and I think we as a society should not let go of them. Things like:
>God helps those who help themselves
>Honour thy mother and thy father
>Do unto others as they would have do unto you
>The story of Job (what a great dude)
By not paying attention to these timeless parables, I do think that's one of the things causing modern society to be so fucked up.

Of course we don't need to take these stories as gospel (they're not, since god isn't real). But we can ABSOLUTELY learn SOMETHING from them. It is, after all, a body of belief that allowed humans to prosper for the last two thousand years.

>>11379083
What fucking prosperity? Human prosperity fucking EXPLODED in the exact time and geographical region that decided to start questioning this shit. If anything it seems to me like it is a body of belief that has held humans back.

>>11376850
>plebbit retard is also an Darwinist and atheist
Whoa no way!

>>11376861
>>The big bang happened between 10-15 billion years ago.
No.
>>11376960
Wow this thread is literally brimming with absolute idiots.

>>11379075
You have to go back.

>>11377364
>It requires that "random" mutations that benefit the creatures happen regularly.
Yes they do, and OTHER mutations are negative. But THOSE animals die off because they're weaker. The ones do lucked out with a genetic benefit are the ones who survive.

>>11379059
But is it an actual problem? Of course it's inelegant, that's not the point

>>11379063
See >>11378991
The vertebrate eye (mammals less so, we were probably all descended from nocturnal animals so our eyes sorta suck compared to birds and reptiles) is the greatest visual organ we could conceive. Any shitbird "improvements" are retarded observations made by people who know nothing about the visual system. No, the nerves and blood vessels are not on backwards. It's that way for a reason.

>>11379053
haha clamped

>>11379116
https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

>>11379097
it sure is, but not the people you think

>>11378991
>Here's a fucking hint, it's called "eagle eye," not "squid eye" retards.
Cool anecdotal evidence bro! Did you know Cepalophods have dual accommodation just like eagles?
>The octopus eye has the photoreceptors in the wrong spot, and that's a fucking fact.
What spot, what's wrong about it? They don't have to have a good spot, because their whole eye is good.
>The way octo-eyes are laid out makes it impossible to get a strong bloodflow into the photoreceptors.
Soure? Maybe they don't need a strong blood flow, because are better than vertebrate eyes?
>The reason eagles have such great vision in the first place is because they have a big honkin chunk of vasculature in the middle of their eye (yes, in front of the receptors).
Maybe they need strong bloodflow, because nerves and veins make it harder to detect light in the first place?
>Then you have the fact that Muller cells actually process the light before it even gets to the receptors.
I'm reading now about them and could find only that they insulate receptors electrically, not "process".
How do you know it's so superior compared to Cephalopoda eyes, not just a poor design with improvements on top of it?
>All that fucking nervous tissue in front of the receptors is actually IMPROVING acuity for zero cost.
Is it? What if Muller cells are needed, because layers of neurons on top of receptors create noise?
>Your brain is more than smart enough to cancel out the blind spot. And even in cases where it is not (you lose an eye, for instance), you don't fucking use that part anyway.
Isn't it called a bad design, if someone has to do your job, because you suck at doing it? The brain is superior, because it works with so shitty eyes.

>But octopuses are blind fucking retards, while vertebrates are eagle eyed megachads.
This is your superior vertebrate vision without noise cancelling.

>>11379411
>>11378991
Also explain the fact the spot having the best image quality has actually less nerves and veins on it?

>>11378018
>>11378991
What does "Makes you partially blind" even mean? I'm a biologylet so I don't understand.
Are we partially blind?

>>11379486
>Are we partially blind?
Look at the picrel from >>11379411
Brain takes such a shitty vision and corrects it using memory so you think your sight is good.

>>11378991
The blind spot is due to the optic nerve. It has nothing to do with vascularisation.
The vascularisation likely developed because of the importance of their fovea, not the other way around. Octopi don’t need the visual acuity of birds of prey, so they didn’t evolve the same level of acuity. Just like how we don’t have the sense of smell a dog has.

>>11379495
Thats pretty fucking amazing.

>>11377482
whomst*

>>11379088
They survived. Without surviving with religion, we never would have got to all the science and technology.

>>11379095
>>11379097
>>11379100
Without fail, the christ cucks on this board turn to ad hominem, because they have been beaten by rational arguments, and can't make any in return.

It happens in EVERY SINGLE THREAD. Religious cucks ALWAYS DO THIS.

Which means they are forever admitting their stupidity, and atheism's truth - or else they would be able to make rational arguments against it.

>>11379655
Don't even try to turn this shit into some "Atheism" vs "Christianity" strawman cesspool.
It's retardation vs. cold logic and observable facts.

>>11379657
Christ cuck seethe.

>>11379661
Wrong.
Not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish, not Atheist, not Nothing.
I don't care for those labels you've tried sticking on my lack of belief in higher beings for close to 40 fucking years now. Stop trying to stir shit in a thread that died yesterday.

>>11379206
>all available evidence supports the notion that the inverted vertebrate retina is inferior to the more logical design of the cephalopods.
The author just fucking explained to you how much better the avian eye is than anything else in the animal kingdom, and then tries to sell you this horseshit. You can't have it both ways, retard. Humans (and mammals in general) having worse vision than avians is not evidence against the "inverted" retina.
I forgot one important kicker in my earlier post. Rather, I intentionally withheld it in case some retard like you tried to act up.
What's this? Oh it's the fucking motherfucking god damn RPE. Retinal. Pigmented. Epithelium. Retard.
Even if you deny the oxygen delivery hypothesis (a hypothesis for which you have no reason to deny, your photoreceptors are the most oxygen intensive cells in your fucking motherfucking body), that still doesn't account for the NECESSITY of the RPE.
Have you ever heard how albino people have shitty vision? The pale fuckers are basically fucking blind compared to their melanin enriched counterparts. Why do you think that is the case?
It's because they lack pigment in their RPE. This is /sci/, so I expect you understand that dark pigment absorbs energy (light) on a broader spectrum than transparent cells. It is VERY fucking important not just for acuity, but to prevent burning a hole in your god damn retina. People without pigmented RPEs have sensitive fucking eyes, on top of already being blind.
Explain to me. No, fucking explain to me dipshit how you put a dark layer in front of the photoreceptors. How do you do this?
The squid has a solution, if you were curious. That's how important the RPE is. It has a fucking hobbled together piece of shit solution that barely works. They have little granules floating around doing fuck all to draw light.
It rejects intelligent design, but not in the way you think.

http://quarkphysics.ca/scripsi/index.php/vision-of-octopi-and-the-persistence-of-error/

>>11379664
You allied Christianity with logic and facts in your little comparison. If you didn't mean to, then learn the English language better.

Also the last post in this thread made before I made my first post today was made 40 minutes before I posted, not a day ago, you fucking moron. And people have been posting in it throughout today. You fucking moron.

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called “blind spot”) to join the optic nerve.

>>11379665
>It rejects intelligent design, but not in the way you think.
Not him, but I guess everyone were arguing with you, because they were thinking you were defending intelligent design.
http://quarkphysics.ca/scripsi/index.php/vision-of-octopi-and-the-persistence-of-error/
Was the work reviewed? I'm going to read through it, but the guy isn't a zoologist "I have a B.Sc. as well as an M.Sc. in physics".
I wonder if he's correct.

>>11379506
I didn't mean to conflate the two, but both blood vessels and nerves do obscure some negligible portion of the visual field. Also, the two are fucntionally connected in most vertebrates' visual system. Both reptiles and birds have a projection of vasculature coming out of the optic disc that plays a vital role in them having the best eyesight in the animal kingdom. In reptiles, the conus papillaris. In birds, the pecten oculi. In fish, the falciform process.
The current running hypothesis on why all mammals have shitty vision is that we got bottlenecked as nocturnal animals at one point. That is why we lack this vascular structure that is present in birds and reptiles and fish.
A structure, which by the way, is also HEAVILY pigmented to further protect the retina from damage.
I want you to show me how the squid could have an analog of this. How it could ever develop without inverting the retina.

>>11379696
>HURR DURR KEKS
No, you're dragging facts and logic down to the same level as the fucking retard who got owned by them.
Shoo.

>>11379743
Learn how to write English properly you fucking faggot moron.

>>11379714
>>11379665
The paper is fine, but I think the conclusion is bad. The author really badly wants to prove human eye is better than cepalophod eye and he bends reality. To be honest saying cepalophod eyes are better than human is also wrong. Both organs are adaptations to environment and they're both good enough.
Just look at the argumentation, he uses
>No sane person would actually want to trade his human eye for the cephalopod eye (if it were indeed possible to do this).
>No sane person would actually
Ad hominem.
And the conclusion:
>Conclusion #1: The human eye is indisputably superior to the cephalopod eye.
Human eye is adapted to land, whereas cepalophod eye is adapted to depths. Surely on land human eye is superior, but it's not true in the ocean.
>• clearly focused images
Not needed under water.
>• much better visual acuity (an octopus eye would never be able to read text)
Octopus doesn't have to read text.
>• colour vision (all colours at once)
We see colors, because primates lived from finding and differing fruits. Many vertebrates see only one color, while octopus can pick whatever color it wants and focus on this.
Even human eye can't do this, that's why our eye can be fooled by RGB. It really depends on what you think about, the author just picked what was convenient to prove his hypothesis.
>• much greater range of focusing
Underwater you don't have to have a high range of focusing, because water's opacity is relatively high.
>• much greater range of light intensities
Same thing, you don't need this underwater.

My conclusion:
Cepalophod eye is better underwater, human eye is better on land

Now I'm going to read about inverted retina.

>>11379753
Learn how to write an argument without falling back on slurs.

>>11379754
>>11379665
Okay, the blog post starts being more and more inconsistent. The author basically explains more the construction of the human eye and about its advantages, but tells almost nothing about the cepalophod eye. This comparison isn't fair.
>The main constraint is that it is absolutely essential that the outer segments of the photoreceptors be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in order for them to function and to reduce light scattering in the eye.
So he is talking here about the layer under the photoreceptors. How does it make the inverted design bad, how is it impossible for the inverted design?
>First of all the RPE is highly pigmented so that it absorbs light. This prevents any photons that don’t get absorbed in the outer segments from scattering and blurring the image.
Not an argument regarding inverted design, such a layer could exist in the cephalopod eye, it is not present, because it's not needed in water.
>Secondly, the outer disks wear out quite rapidly. They are formed near the middle of the photoreceptor and move up to the tip over 11 days, where they are pinched off and discarded. The RPE digests these worn out disks (phagocytosis) so that they don’t clog up the retina and prevent the photoreceptors from getting the nutrients it needs. When this process malfunctions, the retina degenerates.
Still not an argument regarding inverted desing. Not needed underwater.
>Thirdly, the RPE and the choroid layer behind it provide oxygen, nutrients and necessary chemicals for the photoreceptors to function.
Not an argument supporting the hypothesis inverted design is better. It just tells the layer UNDER the rods and cones feeds them. Nothing impossible with the cepalophod design.

The post is too long, I'm going to write more...

>>11376862
Based and redpilled

>>11379814
Hm, let me think about that. No. Fucktard.

>>11379836
Ok, then enjoy continuing to never being taken serious by anyone ever.
This is not /b/.

>>11379824
>>11379665
>The cones have even more mitochondria than the rods. There is no tissue in the body that has a greater concentration of mitochondria. Vision does not come cheap.”
>This quote explains the necessity of extra blood vessels in the retina to nourish the neurons, instead of just relying on the choroid for this. Now, all of this metabolic activity in the outer segments of the photoreceptors generates a lot of heat. The inverted retina allows the blood supply of the choroid to remove this heat. If the retina was not inverted, the heat would have nowhere to go.
Why? Can't the heat be removed from behind the retina using blood vessels? This blog post doesn't explain why.
And there's no source for the overheating problem.

The whole blog post is written to "prove" the hypothesis, yet the information is cherry picked, it lacks sources and dude is not a zoologist.
No wonder why he posted it on his blog and turned off comments, because no journal would take this serious.

>>11379071
> What clock has gears whose only goal is to stop other gears from turning? What machine has parts that destroy other parts, which try their very best not to be destroyed?
and yet it all keeps chuggin along. u mad gaytheist fuckboy?

>>11379486
Your eye has a blind spot in a very important place near the center of your FoV, and that is due to the optical nerve plugging into your eyeball right there. The reason why you can see things is because the other eye sees there. This "design" is just retarded.

>>11379840
>NO NO NO I WON'T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>11379824
Pretty much agreeing that it boils down to optimization (obviously you don't need great acuity or protection/regeneration when you barely have light and only live to be 3 years old, and none of this stuff comes cheap) but I think the blog's argument is that an RPE can't exist in the inverted eye. That might not be a great argument, since there's nothing stopping you from putting it between the receptors and the nerves. At least, on a high level. Developmental histologists would probably tell you it wouldn't happen that way. And even then it might not be as efficient as the inverted model, but I don't think there's any way to know. We have no examples to go on.

There are genuine (read, peer reviewed and not some faggy blog) arguments to be made for the inverted eye being superior in terms of efficient real estate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591859

At some point, it's all speculative. Every organism we know with high visual acuity has an inverted retina, so to say it is somehow inefficient is pretty asinine. But to even turn it into a contest is to fundamentally misunderstand fitness. Tortoises aren't inferior to cheetahs because they can't run as fast. They are adapted to their environment and that's that.

>>11376960
Biofag here:
1. science is neutral with religion
2. That retard should use his horns, he's technically a coomer who doesn't use his weewee in women
3. There's more than "how did life begin"?

>>11379988
>science is neutral with religion
I disagree. Do you honestly believe it's a coincidence that the rise of science coincided with the fall of religion, starting with the Enlightenment, and carrying through to the present day?

Since no scientific test has been able to show that there is a "god", just like ghosts and witches, we should probably ditch the whole concept.

>>11376847
DNA is one of the only things science has yet to explain. We don't know where life came from and it still remains a mystery. I would like to qualify everything I just conceded with the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and your entire argument is an appeal to ignorance
As for eyes, they actually prove evolution. Over time different species of animals have evolved different eyes for different reasons. Back in the age of Cambrians, lots of eyes and eyes that couls see all over, regardless of depth, were in favor, and as such were very popular, and some insects that descend from these animals keep these types of eyes like insects and arachnids (spiders having 8 eyes all of which can see all over), while verterbates descided they only needed 2 eyes and that seeing either straight forward, but with depth, was important for predators, while seeing all around, but still with depth, was important for prey, as one needs to hunt one thing down while the other needs to be able to survey.

>>11377019
Not trying to say that this is wrong, but how would a cornea develop from step d to e?

Why can't there be intelligent design through evolution? I always thought it was stupid sectarian bs when people ardently believed one or the other. Personally I think the sheer complexity involved in the formation of life as we know it (through evolution) is a good indicator that there is a creator. Sure, it can't be proven, but that doesn't mean it is a ridiculous theory. Our current technology just doesn't allow us to observe everything that there could ever be.

>>11380828
>Why can't there be intelligent design through evolution?
Evolution does not "design" organisms in an intelligent fashion. The mechanism for adding new information, mutation, is essentially throwing designs at a wall and seeing what sticks and what does stick is more often than not just good enough. This is why we have blind spots in our eyes as >>11378018 mentioned. What is "good enough" often has faults; it's just that the benefits out-weigh the faults and thus such traits can propagate through a population.

>>11380879
I understand that, and there are plenty of examples in our bodies alone that demonstrate the randomness. My thoughts are a different take behind intelligent design:
As humans, we create many things that "harness" certain reactions. The reactions themselves we don't really have control over, we just influence them. Evolution was more like a car for the creator. He put the engine together, attached controls like a wheel and pedals, and then poured the fuel in stepped on the accelerator. I think he had a destination he wanted to get to (and who knows if we are that destination or if there are still billions of years left in the journey), and evolution is the car that is taking him/us/the universe there.

What I say is still certainly based on faith that there is a creator. Ultimately, I don't think it is a ridiculous notion to believe that something as complex as life was initiated in some way by a being that we can't hope to understand with the technology we currently have.

>>11380895
I also understand that this theory of mine is based off of the limited imagination and understanding that I have as a human (and not a particularly intelligent one). It is entirely likely that me attaching human-like rationales to the creator is wildly inaccurate, and that there is a completely different though process to it all. I have no way of knowing, but there is something about my existence and the understanding that I have about all other existences that makes me think there is more to us than just "it happened".

>>11380895
>>11380903
I'm too small-brained and tired for philosophy right now

>>11380879
Also evolution and sexual selection also explains why we have so fucked up things like >>11376960
in nature.

An intelligent designer wouldn't let a species run into a wall because sexual selection went crazy.

What is convergent evolution

>>11376854
>Explain how DNA could evolve within a span of the first 500,000 years of the universe's existence then
DNA has been evolving since the beginning, it was always there. It just took a while to form but once it formed it was fast acting and did it's job to replicate and pass information

>>11376862
>Evolution COMES FROM intelligent design
it's not intelligent design, it's just something the planet had to do to stay alive. It's part of the cycle, eventually humans will be unneeded once earth transfers it's knowledge to just data and then travels elsewhere.

people for some reason think intelligent design is like a real physical guy writing stuff out, it's actually just the natural process of life.

>>11379059
Ohhh, so they have long necks so they have more time to think about what they're saying. Intelligent

This is why I'm Muslim.

>>11376850
Based

>>11379413
fewer

>>11380773
>Not trying to say that this is wrong, but how would a cornea develop from step d to e?
It's just a matter of forming a bubble/ball of transparent cells. Not that hard, something similar happens during embriogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation
That's how guts form.

>>11381559
>an intelligent designer wouldn't let a species run into a wall
Why wouldn't a higher intelligence do that? DNA and evolution are just a game to them.

>>11383165
>Why wouldn't a higher intelligence do that? DNA and evolution are just a game to them.

what do you guys think intelligence is? You think there's a dude in a lab creating life? it doesn't work that way. When the earth was formed, it was chaotic then through asteroids we were able to form water, and then the water had to create life to keep the water clean and alive so in order to do that it had to invent basic single celled organisms to filter out bad stuff in the air, which got more and more complex and needed more and more different pieces to do different task the earth couldn't do. Because the earth isn't sentient. Then once the earth was livable it started created different more complex biological machines to do even more task, like filter out populations, eat evasive plants, expend energy, etc. The brain got created to store information because the earth couldn't do that as we are advancing and advancing we are transfering all our infomation into data like google so eventually the "brain" won't need a biological host and can leave the earth in some other form when the earth dies out.

>>11379109

To add onto this, a mutation being "positive" is determined by the environment creating these selecting pressures.

An eye would be at best worthless,
and at worst both a waste of energy and a physical weakness on a planet with no fucking sunlight.
Its not like a fucking video game "my eye gives me 10+ doge" Christ.
It is one of the main forces behind evolution. DIFFERENT environments make DIFFERENT traits, features, ect both more and less advantageous.

Being a giant herbivore was going great for a lot of the dinosaurs until their suddenly was a global lack of large forests IE food due to a big fucking rock falling from the sky.