[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1645877616606.jpg (37 KB, 600x549)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
The usual response to "the eye is incredibly complex and coudn't have arose randomly" is that it gradually went from a simple structure that merely senses light into a more complex structure until eventually it became the sensory organ that we know today, this is fine and plausible.
But the question is, how did that intial simple structure appear? The organism must have, at a point in its evolution, went from not being able to sense light to being able sense light with no in between.
The problem is that even the most simple ocular organ is immensely complex, it is therefore immensely, and I do mean almost miraculous for a single generation to have mutated all the faculities needed for even simple vision.
The alternative that the organism would instead coincidentally evolve a structure bit by bit each generation that ultimately culminates in a sensory organ, might be even more unlikely. As it would have to do this with no evolutionary pressure (each iteration wouldn't add to its fitness), this is less likely than throwing a bunch of metal together in a scrapyard and expecting a camera to result.
The same could be said of hearing, smelling, thinking, etc
>>
>>14591662
>But the question is, how did that intial simple structure appear?
Byproduct of chemical reactions to light. That thing that happens to literally everything.

Fuck off.
>>
>>14591766
Nothing to do with sense, everything has a smell but rocks can't smell
>>
>>14591662
Yeah so your saying the eye it self is one thing, the simple sensing light mechanism, but then you've gotta think of all the wires and nerves and how it hooks up to some type of brain
>>
>>14591843
Yes it does. You asked how the simple structure appeared. For sight, certain cells are just more sensitive to light. Selection pressure and chance mutation of what an organism subsequently does with that determine further advancement of that sense.
>>
say an organism favors a warm environment, and light is the primary source of warmth (very likely scenario on earth)
this organism by chance mutates a structure that is sensitive to light -- could be a single cell, could be some photon-reactive molecular structure, etc
selective pressure now applies
>>
>>14591766
You are dumb.
>>
>>14591662
>The usual response to "the eye is incredibly complex and coudn't have arose randomly" is that it gradually went from a simple structure that merely senses light into a more complex structure
The usual statement is that the eye is incredibly complex and could not have arose via gradualism. Nobody makes the brainless argument implying the eye can't randomly poooof into existence naturally because everybody agrees it can't.
Hilariously enough someone did make the argument the "first life" maybe did randomly pop into existence instantly (ie no chemical evolution/gradualism) and wrote a peer review paper about it
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
>this is fine and plausible
No, it is religious delusion.
>>14591766
>DUUUR IT JUST HAPPENED OKAY!!!
Evolutiontards are such simpleton zealots. The duur it's a byproduct does not explain how chemical reactions would translate to a motive reaction, which is the only way these useless byproduct reactions to light could be selected for to become more useful.
>>14592099
>determine further advancement of that sense.
Cells being sensitive to light != a sense. Your brain cells are sensitive to neutron radiation but that is not a sense etc. It's meaningless to say further advancement of that "sense" because there is no sense there. You are saying gibberish. You might as well say
>Selection pressure and chance mutation of what an organism subsequently does with that determine further advancement of that flux capacitor.
>>
>>14592401
Boring obvious troll is boring and obvious.
>>
>>14592123
>organism by chance mutates a structure that is sensitive to light -- could be a single cell, could be some photon-reactive molecular structure
A CELL?? Insanely complex features. Would take incomprehensible trillions of eons to chance mutate these. Almost all cells are sensitive to light btw, you must mean reactive to light.
>>
File: 1642524598883.png (534 KB, 1377x837)
534 KB
534 KB PNG
>>14592407
>>
>>14592413
Awww look the baby is having a tantrum
>>
>>14592416
>>
>>14592419
>Tantrum continues
>>
File: 1559182925532.jpg (218 KB, 1024x768)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
>>14592423
>>
Wouldn't the clue be looking at the smallest creatures with eyes and the smallest creatures with light sensors, some in between, find similarities, paths of progression
>>
>>14591662
>The problem is that even the most simple ocular organ is immensely complex
The precursor to the eye was not an ocular organ at all. It was chenoreceptor cells.

Also, you're incorrectly assuming the evolution of a complex organ has to start from scratch. It doesn't, it can co-opt already existing complex features. There are many examples of this in the evolution of the eye, such as crystallin proteins and the PAX6 gene.

>The alternative that the organism would instead coincidentally evolve a structure bit by bit each generation that ultimately culminates in a sensory organ, might be even more unlikely. As it would have to do this with no evolutionary pressure (each iteration wouldn't add to its fitness)
Wrong. Sensitivity to light is useful to many simple organisms. And you again insurrection assume that these features has to develop for the sole purpose of vision rather than evolving for some other use abs then being co-opted later. Just stop posting and learn a little about evolution.
>>
>>14592411
>A CELL?? Insanely complex features.
Cells already exist. You're just adding a photosensitive protein to it.
>>
File: file.png (49 KB, 988x388)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>14591662
>tvi ochenv
>svetlviy chelobek
what does this mean?
google translate says "Your eyes. Light man"
>>
>>14592401
>The duur it's a byproduct does not explain how chemical reactions would translate to a motive reaction
??? Every motion is a chemical reaction. You're silly.

>Cells being sensitive to light != a sense
It literally is though. What do you think sensitive means? It just refers to the organism gaining information. It doesn't have to process this information in a brain to sense it, its body can just react directly to it.
>>
>>14592493
ты oчeнь cвeтлый чeлoвeк
you are a very bright person
you are a very kind person
>>
>>14592518
haha, got it
thanks :3
>>
>>14592411
retard-tier reply, sad i even came back to read it
>>
>>14592487
>Cells already exist.
The context was obviously the creation of a novel cell, so what he said is ridiculous.
>You're just adding a photosensitive protein to it.
He made this exact distinction and it was separate from the creation of a cell....
>>14592500
>??? Every motion is a chemical reaction. You're silly.
You can't read. I said translate the chem reaction to motive reaction. Every motion in an organism is caused by a chemical reaction, but few chemical reactions create motive reactions at a macro level (ie causes a cell itself to move). The explanation fails in explaining how one gets to the other. It magically jumps from useless chem byproducts to cell movement.
>It literally is though
No, it "literally" is not. You seriously cannot read. Refer to neutron radiation example I just gave right in front of you.
>What do you think sensitive means?
Proclivity to reaction. Like how undiluted nitroglycerin is sensitive to physical shock. Does nitroglycerin "sense" physical shock? Fuck no that is an idiotic and meaningless combination of words.
>It just refers to the organism gaining information. It doesn't have to process this information in a brain to sense it
If a stimuli is not processed then it is not information, duh. Your nerves below an epidural injection site in your spine are still reacting to stimuli, but you obtain no information if someone then stabs you in the leg because your brain does not process the stimuli. If you were blindfolded you would have no clue it even happened because you cannot sense it.
>its body can just react directly to it.
Meaningless. A reaction does not imply anything was sensed. Refer to the many examples I have now given.
>>14592704
>I'll just project he's a retard to hide the fact I cant argue against what he said
galaxy brain
>>
>>14592480
>Sensitivity to light is useful to many simple organisms
Of course
>some other use
This makes no sense, how would an iris or a retina benefit an organism except through vision, if you want a more microscopic example, pic related is cyanobacteria sensing light, and are probably the first to have evolved this sense. They see using the cyanobacteriochrome protein, every source I've found online only mentions this protein in its ability to sense light, what other use could the bacteria have obtained from the parts that make it?
I think evolution is obviously real, and I'm not Christian but expecting this sort of blind evolution with little to no selection to result in these wonderfully complex structures not just once for the eye, but dozens of times for each an every function of an organism, just requires faith at this point, and is equally scientifically rigorous as someone telling you "God did it".
>>
>>14593140
>what other use could the bacteria have obtained from the parts that make it?
To add, it not only has to benefit from these constituents but has to evolve them in a way that is evolutionary beneficial, and also results in the eye.
Assuming structure X followed by Y followed by Z results in a sensory mechanism, then X would itself have to be beneficial and Y and Z would to, but the organism/environment could not "know" (for a lack of a better word) that X followed by Y followed by Z would eventually result in a sensory structure, meaning, as nothing is selecting for this specific route of evolution (even though the individual parts themselves are selected) the organism would not only have to evolve them, but also arrange them in a way that coincidentally results in an eye by pure chance. This is literally religion.
>>
>>14593069
>The context was obviously the creation of a novel cell
Yes, the creation of a novel cell doesn't require the cell to evolve all over again from scratch, it just requires the modification of an already existing cell. Do you actually not understand this or are you being obtuse?

>He made this exact distinction and it was separate from the creation of a cell....
No, he said photon reactive molecular-structure. You do know there are biological structures that are outside of cells right?
>>
>>14593069
>I said translate the chem reaction to motive reaction.
No, you said "does not explain how chemical reactions would translate to a motive reaction," as if it's unknown how this occurs. It's well understood, you're just hoping no one will notice you're spewing bullshit.

>The explanation fails in explaining how one gets to the other.
Which explanation? Are you talking in general or about a specific reaction?

>It magically jumps from useless chem byproducts to cell movement.
What useless byproducts?

>Refer to neutron radiation example I just gave right in front of you.
If an organism has certain structures that react to neutron radiation, then there is no reason why selective pressure for detecting neutron radiation couldn't guide the development of those structures into a specialized sensory organ.

>Does nitroglycerin "sense" physical shock?
Is nitroglycerin an organism?

>If a stimuli is not processed then it is not information, duh.
I said "processed in a brain." Information doesn't require a brain to propagate through the body, just chemical reactions.

>A reaction does not imply anything was sensed.
A reaction to stimuli implies something was sensed. And that mechanism is perfectly capable of evolutionary development. You're just arguing semantics at this point.
>>
>>14591662
You're directly alluding to the junkyard tornado 747.
>That was never a valid argument.
You tell me that punctuated equilibria is fucking bullshit, well, maybe then I'll listen.
>>
>>14593451
>junkyard tornado 747.
This argument is nonsense because it because it mistakenly assumes evolution is random and not selected for, however I'm specifically showing a case (>>14593167) where something more complex than any machine we can build evolves WITHOUT selection, this is the point where I start calling bs
>>
>>14593140
>Of course
Then its false to say that that each iteration of light-reactive mechanisms wouldn't add to fitness.

>This makes no sense, how would an iris or a retina benefit an organism except through vision
Loaded question, why iris or retina? It would be some precursor to an iris or retina that served some other purpose and then were modified and co-opted for a new purpose. You assumed this cannot occur in general and I gave you two examples. Picking out non-examples doesn't actually respond to my argument.

>probably the first to have evolved this sense.
Source?

>They see using the cyanobacteriochrome protein, every source I've found online only mentions this protein in its ability to sense light, what other use could the bacteria have obtained from the parts that make it?
Here you go:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15814558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314001/

>expecting this sort of blind evolution with little to no selection
That's solely your assumption, based on ignorance.
>>
>>14593167
>To add, it not only has to benefit from these constituents but has to evolve them in a way that is evolutionary beneficial, and also results in the eye.
This is a teleological fallacy. No organ "had" to evolve just because you see them today. We're the result of a meandering genetic algorithm, not a preconceived design. If we didn't have eyes you wouldn't be asking the question, "why don't we have eyes?" You would be asking why we have some other feature and making the same incorrect assumptions.

>as nothing is selecting for this specific route of evolution (even though the individual parts themselves are selected) the organism would not only have to evolve them, but also arrange them in a way that coincidentally results in an eye by pure chance.
In order to be a coincidence there would have to be some preconceived goal of an eye in the first place. There isn't, the only reason eyes are special to you is because they occurred out of many other possibilities. Any of those possibilities would be special to you if they occurred. Your logic is completely backwards.

>This is literally religion.
No, it's just your lack of understanding.
>>
>>14593454
>where something more complex than any machine we can build evolves WITHOUT selection
There was always selection. You're confused. Selection is not towards a specific future organ, it is towards whatever existing modified structure confers fitness.
>>
>>14593432
>you said "does not explain how chemical reactions would translate to a motive reaction," as if it's unknown how this occurs.
It IS unknown how it allegedly/magically evolved bajillion of years ago. You are acknowledging I'm right that his retard explanation leaves it out by saying "we just know bruh" You would not have to say that if his "explanation" actually included an explanation
>Its well understood youre just hoping no one will notice youre spewing bullshit
Please, you still cant read. Its understood in fully functional systems. It's not understood at all how the USELESS byproducts of chemical reactions can translate into motive reactions, which was the premise. The chemicals we directly observe that are understood are NOT useless byproducts by definition: they're causing a motive reaction. The context was how useless byproducts in "ancestor cells" translate to motive reactions. You are creating a strawman by conflating these two things.
>What useless byproducts?
ones mentioned in FP
>If an organism has certain structures that react to neutron radiation >development of those structures into a specialized sensory organ
This clueless falsehood has nothing to do with braincells reacting while having no sense of the radiation. Youre correct a sensory organ is 1 requisite needed to establish sense, proving me right that sensitive =! sense
>nitroglycerin an organism?
Meaningless distinction. Individual braincells, your leg, and nitro g. are all not organisms, that is why none of them can "sense"
>Information doesn't require a brain
I just proved otherwise
>A reaction to stimuli implies something was sensed
My epidural example you ignored directly proves otherwise. Nerves reacted but nothing was sensed
>Youre just arguing semantics
You fucking asked what "sensitive" means & after I immediately btfo'd you you cry semantics?? I gave examples not semantics anyway, you are completely dishonest. I could easily quote a dictionary that agrees with me too.
>>
>>14593394
>novel cell
>just requires modification of already existing cell
Modifcation doesn't create something novel. If you modify a car and add better tires you have not created a novel car. Even creating and adding an electric engine does not make a novel car, it's a novel engine, but not car. What other anon said about novel cells was stupid and wrong. You are wasting time defending him.

You seem to be the person I just responded to so be warned I don't reply to multiple posts by the same person directed at a single post of mine. Condense it to one or you are just bloviating bc you have no argument and the 2nd post will be ignored.
>>
>>14592411
lmao
>>
>>14594114
>It IS unknown how it allegedly/magically evolved bajillion of years ago.
You're now trying to shift the goalposts. It's well known how chemical reactions translate to motion. Are you saying light- sensitive proteins don't do anything that can be selected?

>You are acknowledging I'm right
No.

>It's not understood at all how the USELESS byproducts of chemical reactions
What useless byproducts? You're begging the question by assuming any precursor in the evolutionary path was useless.

>ones mentioned in FP
Mentioning "useless byproducts" doesn't elucidate what you're talking about.

>You are creating a strawman
Projection.

>This clueless falsehood
What falsehood?

>has nothing to do with braincells reacting while having no sense of the radiation.
Then your example has nothing to do with whether eyes can evolve.

>Meaningless distinction. Individual braincells, your leg, and nitro g. are all not organisms, that is why none of them can "sense"
First you say it's meaningless and then you agree...

>I just proved otherwise
Where?

>My epidural example you ignored directly proves otherwise.
It's just more tedious semantics. Regardless of whether your brain receives information, your body reacts to it and that reaction can be useful.

>You fucking asked what "sensitive" means
No, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it immediately afterward. You're being obtuse.

>I gave examples not semantics anyway,
The examples don't show that sensory organs can't evolve, they just show you what you classify as "sense." Semantics.
>>
>>14592419
This isn't even an applicable reaction image. lrn2b8
>>
>>14594140
>Modifcation doesn't create something novel.
It can.

>If you modify a car and add better tires you have not created a novel car
Fallacious proof by example. You have to show that any modification can't change the function of the car. Good luck.

>What other anon said about novel cells was stupid and wrong.
Not an argument. Do better.

>I don't reply to multiple posts by the same person directed at a single post of mine
That's fine, you can just concede the point instead of responding. I prefer a challenge but I'll take an easy win.
>>
>>14594580
You certainly are winning, but it is kind of hard to lose.

I will credit you, however, in pointing out the nature of the dishonesty at play.
>Fallacious proof by example. You have to show that any modification can't change the function of the car. Good luck.
Exactly this.

Something useful to add about the whole exchange is the totality of this trick
The troll is attempting to declare that unless a thing is "ex nihilo" it is not "new", which is begging the question. That is, assuming the conclusion. In nature, nothing forms ex nihilo, but is a modification of something prior. What he wants requires, and assumes, a God capable of creation ex nihilo (a thing never seen). His definition of what would count as new, therefore,

The game young earth creationists play goes like this: Only accept something as novel if it is ex nihilo (from nothing). If it has preceding parts, declare it is the same thing even if the function of AB is different from A or B because it originates from A and B. Just a shell game. Nothing more. So his car will always be "a car" no matter how extreme the functional or other changes are, even though this is not analogous to how we define species of organisms. "Heads I win, tails you lose"

All young earth creationists have are deceptive semantic games where they define themselves as correct and define any alternative as impossible.
>>
>>14594553
>You're now trying to shift the goalposts
It's exactly what I always said you just have low comprehension
>It's well known how chemical reactions translate to motion
It is not well known how useless byproducts magically translated into motion. You keep denying this.
>What useless byproducts?
in FP
>Mentioning useless byproducts doesnt elucidate what you're talking about.
ok I'll babystep you through this since you can't think for yourself. The alleged "very first" chemical byproduct in the "very first" cell on earth that chemically reacted to light logically did not serve a function bc if it did then you must pretend there was some magic structure that already existed that benefits from the chemical byproduct that didn't exist yet: an irreducible complexity paradox. Since those structures logically didn't exist, the "well known" bullshit you speak of has zero explanatory power for this hypothetical first translation.
>What falsehood?
Chemical reactions don't meaningfully react to neutrons unless the flux is so high it causes heat. You said an organ could detect radiation which is blatantly false. The organ would be dead long before it could detect
>First you say it's meaningless and then you agree...
Are you high? They aren't organisms thus don't have senses. Brain cells aren't organisms thus don't sense radiation despite reacting. I should have said meaningless question you made
>tedious semantics
logical examples =! semantics, you are lying at this point
>your body reacts to it and that reaction can be useful
Moved goalpost. There is no information & that's the point, I already said reactions were happening
>I answered it immediately afterward
incorrectly
>The examples don't show that sensory organs can't evolve, they just show you what you classify as "sense"
This part of convo started because I fucking said other anon used the word sense wrong. Of course the "sense" examples dont directly disprove the myth of organs evolving from simple cells
>>
>>14594567
>This isn't even an applicable reaction image
Sure it is
>>14594567
>lrn2b8
Looks like I now baited 2 retards into responding to a reaction image so I'd say I'm pretty good at it
>>
>>14595185
>then you must pretend there was some magic structure that already existed that benefits from the chemical byproduct that didn't exist yet: an irreducible complexity paradox.

The fact light produces energy for the organism or cell in question. No paradox. Cell produces byproducts from that process, other cells use those byproducts for other things. Still no paradox.
>>
>>14594580
>It can.
It can't
>Fallacious proof by example
Logically valid proof by example
>You have to show that any modification can't change the function of the car. Good luck
HAHA what?? being novel is not predicated on change of function (paintings can be novel but serve NO function) so I have no need to answer this irrelevant "gotcha" requirement you hopelessly invented out of your confusion.
>Not an argument. Do better.
No shit my argument was and still is done. This was for your benefit to stop wasting your time being wrong.
>instead of responding. I prefer a challenge but I'll take an easy win.
Probably the biggest sign of being hopelessly pathetic is thinking if people stop responding to your retardation it means you "win." This certainly is challenging for you though, that is obvious.
>>
>>14595196
>The fact light produces energy for the organism or cell in question. No paradox
>Cell produces byproducts from that process, other cells use those byproducts for other things. Still no paradox
The paradox is the supposed evolution, not the fact these systems work presently in final form. Sit down child.

>>14594641
On a scale of 1-10 do you actually think anyone reads any of your bloviating invalid nonsense? I died of boredom maybe 5 lines in and stopped reading. It's just that bad.
>>
>>14595248
>The paradox is the supposed evolution
Cells A produce byproduct z, cells B consume byproduct z. Cells that would work together in some form like this have a competitive advantage over cells competing over the same resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution)

In other words, your premise of it being "a paradox" is thoroughly refuted. The mechanisms existed prior to multicellularity, as well.

Must be embarrassing to be so easily refuted by a "child".
>>
>>14595285
>Cells that would work together
The premise was single celled organisms little child so your nonsense wikitardia link is completely irrelevant. (obviously single celled organisms that don't interact with others if you try to weasel around this by mentioning colonial or filamentous organisms)
>In other words, your premise of it being "a paradox" is thoroughly refuted
ROFL you can't even read but think you refuted it? Please
>The mechanisms existed prior to multicellularity, as well
Your faith based belief is not an argument and it is not evidence.
>Must be embarrassing to be so easily refuted by a child
I wouldn't know, little child. Try harder. This was too easy.
>>
>>14595308
>The premise was single celled organisms
Which do work together in the fashion outlined.
>(obviously single celled organisms that don't interact with others if you try to weasel around this by mentioning colonial or filamentous organisms)

Uhhhhh https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569662/
>>
>>14595308
>obviously single celled organisms that don't interact with others
https://www.google.com/search?q=microorganism+cooperation
Here have more.
>>
File: 1575349438103.jpg (100 KB, 921x640)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>14595319
>Which do work together in the fashion outlined.
Yawn, yes I know some colonial cyanobacteria and other single celled organisms sometimes work together that is why I mentioned them silly child......
The premise, again since you simply cannot read, is that the alleged first cell on planet earth that chemically reacted to light initially produced "useless byproducts".... other retarded anon could not comprehend that they were originally useless so I had to explain it to him. You are merely saying that if a bunch of cells near each other 100 million billion trillion years ago produced byproducts and EVENTUALLY these byproducts could be taken advantage of by OTHERS. That is your own separate delusion and it's not what I was arguing against with other anon.
What I correctly pointed out as paradoxical is a single cell INSTANTLY taking advantage of its OWN byproducts the very (very) first time they were produced. The fact that is illogical means the byproducts were "useless byproducts" which other anon doesn't want to believe/admit.

Hence the paradox has nothing to do with "working together", or interacting with other cells like you so cluelessly tried to "argue."

>>14595323
>Here have more.
I've had enough of your insane confusion. Like, you have no idea what I said or how your irrelevant links might refute it. You are just flinging shit at a wall hoping it sticks.
>>
>>14595358
Not just colonial cyanobacteria.
>and EVENTUALLY these byproducts could be taken advantage of by OTHERS
Which is exactly how signaling light or dark and use of photosensitivity developed among cooperating microorganisms, later multicellular organisms.
>What I correctly pointed out as paradoxical is a single cell INSTANTLY taking advantage of its OWN byproducts the very (very) first time they were produced.
Those same cells are what multicellular organisms later became. Congrats, you made a strawman. The same thing could evolve as in multicellular organisms as with single cell cooperation. Nothing requires anything "instantly" do anything.
>>
>>14595285
>Cells A produce byproduct z, cells B consume byproduct z. Cells that would work together in some form like this have a competitive advantage over cells competing over the same resources.
I just realized you didn't even explain your own bullshit correctly. The cells are not "working together" because "cell A gets" nothing in return. It's just "Cell B" eating A's shit.
Are you "working together" when you eat someone's leftover trash they threw out?
>>
>>14595375
Obviously the implication is some scenario in which fitness is enhanced by that dependency. That is the definition of "cooperation". Just deliberately being a jackass doesn't make other people stupid. It just makes you a jackass.
>>
>>14595374
>Not just colonial cyanobacteria.
It's impossible for you to read isn't it? The very (very) next 5 words were "and other single celled organisms".. Do you have some specific mental disability where you stop reading in the middle of a sentence?
>Which is exactly how signaling light or dark and use of photosensitivity developed among cooperating microorganisms, later multicellular organisms.
How deep in your ass did you have to reach to pull out this random combination of words?
>Those same cells are what multicellular organisms later became. Congrats, you made a strawman
How is it even possible I made a strawman when my argument was directed at someone else... I don't give a fuck what you say and thus I have no reason to artificially reconstruct a false version of what you say to defeat it.
>Nothing requires anything "instantly" do anything.
You are a fucking moron. I'm implying its illogical to say the byproducts were not initially useless because its illogical to instantly have use. I am in no way saying this magic MUST have been instant, I'm saying the fact it's illogical to be instant is difinitive grounds the byproduct would be initially useless.
>>
>>14595386
>Obviously the implication is some scenario in which fitness is enhanced by that dependency. That is the definition of "cooperation"
LOL what dependency? The one you lectured me about that I had to correct? It's not the definition of cooperation if you get it wrong, like most things you say.
>Just deliberately being a jackass doesn't make other people stupid. It just makes you a jackass
Pointing out you can't get basic things right is being a jackass?
>>
>>14595403
>Pointing out you can't get basic things right is being a jackass?
No, dishonestly interpreting things people say in a stupid way to make yourself feel smarter is what makes you a jackass.
>>
>>14595185
>It is not well known how useless byproducts
What useless byproducts? You keep avoiding this question and making strawmen by adding it in to claims it was never in. You will continue to do so because you know you're being dishonest and have no justification.

>in FP
That doesn't elucidate what you're talking about, it just repeats the phrase. More avoidance.

>The alleged "very first" chemical byproduct in the "very first" cell on earth that chemically reacted to light logically did not serve a function bc if it did then you must pretend there was some magic structure that already existed that benefits from the chemical byproduct that didn't exist yet
The structure that benefits is the cell itself. You're not making any sense. A photo-reactive chemical does something when it reacts to light, correct? This action can have an effect on the cell it's in, correct? Then how is it "useless" and unable to be selected for? Your "argument" has no logic.

>You said an organ could detect radiation which is blatantly false.
You're the only one who claimed anything close to that:
>Your brain cells are sensitive to neutron radiation but that is not a sense etc.
I responded with a hypothetical:
>If an organism has certain structures that react to neutron radiation, then there is no reason why selective pressure for detecting neutron radiation couldn't guide the development of those structures into a specialized sensory organ.
Are you attempting to gaslight me or are you actually this deluded?

>They aren't organisms thus don't have senses.
Which completely agrees with what I said, that a non-organism doesn't have senses. You have major issues.

>logical examples =! semantics
Examples of what you classify as "sense" = semantics. Let me know when you have examples that prove sensory organs can't evolve via selection.

>Moved goalpost.
How can it be a moved goalpost when that's what this entire discussion is about? What was the point of classifying sense?
>>
>>14595185
You failed to show where you proved Information requires a brain to propagate through the body. I guess you retract that claim.

>incorrectly
How is it incorrect? But thanks for admitting it was a rhetorical question.

>This part of convo started because I fucking said other anon used the word sense wrong. Of course the "sense" examples dont directly disprove the myth of organs evolving from simple cells
So you admit your entire line of argument about "sense" is just irrelevant semantics. Great. Now can you actually try to respond to the substantive discussion?
>>
>>14595227
>It can't
Because...?

>Logically valid proof by example
How does one example show it's impossible to modify a car into something novel? You will never explain this.

>being novel is not predicated on change of function
The original claim was
>organism by chance mutates a structure that is sensitive to light -- could be a single cell, could be some photon-reactive molecular structure
Clearly he's talking about the evolution of a cell with the novel function of reacting to light. For some reason you interpreted this as a cell evolving from scratch instead of an already existing cell being modified.

>(paintings can be novel but serve NO function)
Another fallacious proof by example. Bad habit. Your example shows novel doesn't have to mean novel function, but it fails to show novel cannot mean novel function.

>No shit my argument was and still is done
Where? The only thing you've shown is that you continue to misunderstand what evolution of a photo-sensitive cell means even after it was explained to you here: >>14593394

>Probably the biggest sign of being hopelessly pathetic is thinking if people stop responding to your retardation it means you "win."
I don't think that. If you die or for some other reason are incapable of responding I don't consider it a win. If you wilfully choose to stop responding to valid arguments then I can only conclude that you have no response. Whining about two posts is not an excuse. You don't get to dictate the form in which I respond to you. If you choose not to respond then you concede. Sounds fair to me.
>>
Lots of lower organisms, from bacteria to fungi, have some sort of phototaxis. Bacteria move away or towards light, plants bend towards and there are several systems in place based on daylength/nightlength for plants to grow or bloom. Hell, plants and bacteria have multiple photosynthesis proteins. Theres chlorophyll a and b, beta carotine, shit tons more. It's pretty easy for light sensitive pathways to emerge because light is an energy source, so proteins undergo conformational changes based on receiving enough of an energy influx to initiate whatever pathway they are at the head of.


It's just light sensitive proteins initiating convoluted cascade responses. And the reason why we get imaging at all is the shape.

The leading theory for imaging is that they started as eyespots, patches sensitive to light/dark. Next, a curved structure formed around the eyespot, leading to an ability to detect light directionally. That curve became more curved until it had a smaller opening, which is where you can start basic imaging. As you acquire more information, if you can find a better way to process it (a central processing unit), that bodes very well for your survival. Then you add shit like a superior fluid in the eye, a lens, etc. as the arms race progresses.

It isn't very hard to imagine why or how an eye would evolve. Hell a lot of scientists think imaging is why the Cambrian Explosion occured.
>>
>>14596049
>>The alleged "very first" chemical byproduct in the "very first" cell on earth that chemically reacted to light logically did not serve a function bc if it did then you must pretend there was some magic structure that already existed that benefits from the chemical byproduct that didn't exist yet
>The structure that benefits is the cell itself. You're not making any sense. A photo-reactive chemical does something when it reacts to light, correct? This action can have an effect on the cell it's in, correct? Then how is it "useless" and unable to be selected for?
My favorite part is he continues to argue along these lines after claiming he wasn't.

Note this reply here >>14595403
>>Nothing requires anything "instantly" do anything.
>You are a fucking moron. I'm implying its illogical to say the byproducts were not initially useless because its illogical to instantly have use. I am in no way saying this magic MUST have been instant, I'm saying the fact it's illogical to be instant is difinitive grounds the byproduct would be initially useless.
Ctrl+F for "instant", and you see the only one who brought this up was him >>14592401
>Hilariously enough someone did make the argument the "first life" maybe did randomly pop into existence instantly (ie no chemical evolution/gradualism) and wrote a peer review paper about it
Which at no point did anybody assert was the case, and in fact if you read the citation given he bases this strawman on CTRL+F for "instant" or "instantly" and there are zero relevant results in that citation. Assuming that was the same anon.

However, if it was not the same anon, >>14595358
>What I correctly pointed out as paradoxical is a single cell INSTANTLY taking advantage of its OWN byproducts the very (very) first time they were produced. The fact that is illogical means the byproducts were "useless byproducts" which other anon doesn't want to believe/admit.

Once again ctrl+F, zero mention until he was cornered.
>>
>>14596088
So if I may make a suggestion about these kinds of arguments in future, you can search for any number of tens of thousands of papers on cooperative organisms and evolution of multicellularity. "cooperative microorganisms" as linked earlier.

When cornered with that overwhelming evidence, the anon had to resort to adding an additional claim of "instant" - one never asserted by anybody in replying to him - to dodge. It is useful to focus on rhetoric people need to lie to escape from, and that is where trolls can be useful in learning this.
>>
File: Výstřižek.png (79 KB, 521x276)
79 KB
79 KB PNG
>>14592460
The smallest organisms which react to light are bacteria. It's extremely common, and is not something that only evolved once. What you'd need for a light response to evolve is for a photopigment to become connected to a signal cascade.
Important to note here is that the proteins typically employed as photoreceptors in both animals and bacteria (and plenty of other organisms) have the same basic structure as those involved in chemical signalling. What makes them different is that they bind to retinals (ie.vitamin A); which change their conformation when they capture proteins.
Light reaction processes are not something that should be understood separately from the evolution of signal-response pathways in cells in general. They use many of the same pathways and motifs and clearly evolved together (or from each other).
>>
>>14596897
>when they capture proteins.
That should, of course, say 'protons'
>>
>>14596797
Yes, all he can do is make up strawmen. It's pathetic.
>>
>>14596057
>You failed to show where you proved Information requires a brain to propagate through the body
No, you fail/pretend it's not there via my many examples you ignore
>>14596057
>How is it incorrect? But thanks for admitting it was a rhetorical question.
I proved it was incorrect via my immediate follow up (immediate so don't need to pathetically ask "where" like a retard again). You can't be stupid enough to think I admitted it was rhetorical can you? Oh I guess you are
>So you admit your entire line of argument about "sense" is just irrelevant semantics
No, why are you this stupid? Examples are not semantics. Please stop being so stupid that you can't grasp this fact.
>Now can you actually try to respond to the substantive discussion?
I already did. Sensitive != sense as I have proven.
>>
>>14595423
>No, dishonestly interpreting
It's not dishonestly interpreting anything. You have proven you are stupid enough to think your example of "cooperation" is what you truly think is cooperation. It's not my job to think "oh did this idiot actually belive the bullshit he says or is it just his stupidity again?"
>>
>>14597206
>what you truly think is cooperation
I used the definition in the cited paper. Nor did you address it.
"Dishonestly interpreting things people say in a stupid way to make yourself feel smarter is what makes you a jackass."
>>
>>14596049
>What useless byproducts?
In FP
>That doesn't elucidate what you're talking about
It does if you are not stupid. I babystepped you through it in the next line
>The structure that benefits is the cell itself. You're not making any sense. A photo-reactive chemical does something when it reacts to light, correct? This action can have an effect on the cell it's in, correct? Then how is it "useless"
Very weak strawman. The topic has always been byproducts ie secondary chemicals to the main ones produced/used from photosenthesis. In this hypothetical situaiton of evolution the byproducts necessarily initially would be useless as I have been proving, otherwise you would rely on paradoxes.
>You're the only one who claimed anything close to that
Blatant lie. You said evolve into "specialized sensory organs": a total falsehood. You were the first to mention the nonsense idea of radiation sensing organs
>Are you attempting to gaslight me or are you actually this deluded?
Your deep confusion relies on your falsehood that "sensitive = sense [or having a sense]" The braincells are sensitive to radiation because their proclivity to the reaction of death when they encounter radiation. Death is a reaction no?
>what I said, that a non-organism doesn't have senses
Proving sensitive != sense. A braincell is not an organism but is sensitive to radiation but has no sense of/for detecting it. Hence it was a meaningless question to ask if Nitro G was an organism like I implied.
>How can it be a moved goalpost when that's what this entire discussion is about?
That segway was about what constitutes information, you moved the goalpost by mentioning usefulness of reaction, which is irrelevant in terms of information.
>Examples of what you classify as "sense" = semantics
Simply falase
>>
>>14596088
>Because...?
being novel requires no resemblence to a prior entity. If you modify an entity it will resemble it unless you modify 100% of everything, which is just creating something new from scratch. This is very simple is English not your first language?
>How does one example show it's impossible to modify a car into something novel?
It was an analogy to the cell modification falsehood so it only disproves that example I guess. For establishing the universal rule I need to resort to semantics I guess, which I just easily did.
>Clearly he's talking about the evolution of a cell with the novel function of reacting to light
Nope, I already pointed this out. The idiotc makes a distinction between "single cell" and "reactive structure." The latter requires adding a novel function to the cell, the former requires creation of an entirely new cell from scratch which is why I correctly pointed out that idiocy.
>For some reason you interpreted this as a cell evolving from scratch instead of an already existing cell being modified
He referenced both ideas separately, I only pointed out the stupidity of the first. Learn comprehension.
>Another fallacious proof by example. Bad habit
where?
>but it fails to show novel cannot mean novel function
Still no idea what example you are talking about, I never attempted to prove this
The word "novel" is not predicated on function like I said, proving you wrong.
The phrase "novel function" is of course predicated on there being a novel function. Are you actually dumb enough to confuse these as well?
>If you die or for some other reason are incapable of responding I don't consider it a win. If you wilfully choose to stop responding to valid arguments then I can only conclude that you have no response
So you magically know when someone on the internet dies and doesn't respond vs gets sick of your stupidity and chooses not to respond. Amazing. You are exactly as pathetic as I said.
>>
>>14597301
>>A photo-reactive chemical does something when it reacts to light, correct? This action can have an effect on the cell it's in, correct? Then how is it "useless"
>Very weak strawman. The topic has always been byproducts ie secondary chemicals to the main ones produced/used from photosenthesis. In this hypothetical situaiton of evolution the byproducts necessarily initially would be useless as I have been proving, otherwise you would rely on paradoxes.
Nobody ever said those byproducts need be immediately useful. Literally no one. That is your own invention. Anon has kept pointing this out from the start.
CTRL+F "byproduct"
>>14592401
>The duur it's a byproduct does not explain how chemical reactions would translate to a motive reaction, which is the only way these useless byproduct reactions to light could be selected for to become more useful.
>>14593069
>It magically jumps from useless chem byproducts to cell movement.
>>14595185
>The alleged "very first" chemical byproduct in the "very first" cell on earth that chemically reacted to light logically did not serve a function bc if it did then you must pretend there was some magic structure that already existed that benefits from the chemical byproduct that didn't exist yet: an irreducible complexity paradox.
Anon replies with confusion because he did not argue it either >>14594553
>>14595358
>The premise, again since you simply cannot read, is that the alleged first cell on planet earth that chemically reacted to light initially produced "useless byproducts".... other retarded anon could not comprehend that they were originally useless so I had to explain it to him.
Said anon keeps pointing out the strawman >>14596049
>What useless byproducts? You keep avoiding this question and making strawmen by adding it in to claims it was never in. You will continue to do so because you know you're being dishonest and have no justification.

Sooo yeah. Dishonest.
>>
>>14596797
>still thinks people read his wall of desperate bullshit
even the other moron who is blindly agreeing with you clearly didn't read your nonsense. You win 1st place for being the most pathetic one in this thread, adn that's saying something. I mean, you are obviously sitting in your mothers basement alone rubbing your hands thinking "oooh I'll catch him" desperately reading everything I say and hanging on to every word like a celebrity stalker then not directly engaging me so I can point out where you are wrong. You're just so pathetic it's hard to believe.

>>14597228
You didn't correctly reference a post earlier (you quoted one line of greentext from a different post than the one you hit the respond key to??) so I can't correct whatever it is you're wrong about. Learn how this site works, just highlight a part you want to quote and hit respond, retard.
>>
>>14597370
>even the other moron who is blindly agreeing with you clearly didn't read your nonsense.
The post is entirely quoting your own words. They are, I agree, complete nonsense not worth reading. Just maintaining the thread of your obvious dishonesty.

All you're doing is running with something nobody ever asserted as multiple people explain that to you. It's really easy to deal with.
>>
>"the eye is incredibly complex and coudn't have arose randomly"
An eye is just a piece of a brain. When electromagnetic radiation mess with our brain, the distortion can be used to build a model of the external world. An eye, at its core, is just the area of the brain where such distortion is the easiest to read.
>>
>how did that intial simple structure appear?
As long as there is a brain, and this brain can be reached by light, vision happens.
>>
>went from not being able to sense light to being able sense light with no in between
Every possible organism can sense light. Electromagnetism is the binding force of the universe.
>>
>with no evolutionary pressure
There, inevitable, would be a connection between distortions caused by light, and food/pain. As parts of the body optimize themselves for reacting to such distortions, due to such adaptation happening in every generation, the rest of the cells within the body would be forced to adapt to working with it.
>>
>>14597366
>Nobody ever said those byproducts need be immediately useful. Literally no one. That is your own invention
Awww did little baby just figure this out? Yes. That is my argument that the most logical hypothetical evolution (it didn't evolve im just playing devils advocate) is that these byproducts were initially useless. Anon here asked what useless byproducts >>14593432
and then falsely claimed I was begging the question here >>14594553 by "assuming" (I logically proved) they would be initially useless
Them being initially useless has strong implications for the difficulty of evolving a structure that utilizes them. Not affirming that they initially would be useless is an avoidance tactic and I was trying to pry that out of you and probably several other retards.
>Sooo yeah. Dishonest.
You are a clueless desperately confused retard. I never said anyone else claimed they were initially useful. Your premise that I'm "dishonest" is invented out of thin air, ergo you are the only one being dishonest.
>>
>>14597384
>The post is entirely quoting your own words.
>6 lines of his blacktext
>has audacity to call me dishonest
HAHA! You truly are a pathetic little weasel liar.

>All you're doing is running with something nobody ever asserted as multiple people explain that to you
That isn't "dishonesty" Show me where I said others "asserted" what I was "running with." I dare you, little weasel.
>>
>>14597449
>That is my argument that the most logical hypothetical evolution (it didn't evolve im just playing devils advocate) is that these byproducts were initially useless. Anon here asked what useless byproducts >>14593432
and then falsely claimed I was begging the question here >>14594553 by "assuming" (I logically proved) they would be initially useless
Except if you look at that same post, >>14594114 you wrote,
>Its understood in fully functional systems. It's not understood at all how the USELESS byproducts of chemical reactions can translate into motive reactions, which was the premise. The chemicals we directly observe that are understood are NOT useless byproducts by definition: they're causing a motive reaction. The context was how useless byproducts in "ancestor cells" translate to motive reactions. You are creating a strawman by conflating these two things.

He is clearly pointing out declaring them to be useless in the explanation, not initially, is where you were mistaken. You quite clearly invoked that comment, which was not a strawman, by contrast with the statement "Chemicals we directly observe that are understood are not useless".

The other anon is very clearly pointing out you cannot declare they are useless in the explanation, because other organisms or the same organism can later evolve use out of them. Not that they are useless prior to some other use evolving, as you are strawmanning him to mean.

At no point did anyone say anything like "they were useful initially". If you took someone to mean that, you fucked up. See also: Deliberately misinterpreting what people write to make yourself feel smarter makes you a jackass.
>>
>>14597469
Oh wow you sure got me, I inserted commentary about the sequence of events and therefore it wasn't 100% your words. Toootally means I'm the dishonest one.
>>
>>14597449
While they wouldn't have to be "useful" initially (for all we know, the photosensitive protein could have had some other use beforehand or was simply inert there wasn't a lot of selective pressure to get rid of it so it stayed), it's not like it HAD to be useless. For example:
A cell uses chemical A as some sort of signalling chemical. Its presence causes some sort of behaviour or stimulates the production of another chemical or whatever else you can come up with.
Down the line, the cell evolves a new protein which is sensitive to light and when exposed to light it produces chemical A (or breaks down into byproducts, one of which is the chemical A). This new photosensitivity can now influence how the cell behaves.
This could happen many times and one of the variants of this configuration happens to do something that makes the cell more fit.
I am not an evolutionary biologist but I just don't see what the problem is and why you keep talking about whether a random mutation is immediately "useful" or not. It's just silly.
>>
File: 1596416742130.jpg (123 KB, 768x768)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>14591662
>goes to /sci/ for the first time in a month
>sees this thread
>leaves /sci/
Like....op....just open any book on evolutionary biology. It's all right there. Not complicated, just a more advanced question than whatever you were taught in high school. This is the same tier as
""""macroevolution has never been proven""""""" threads like just say you don't know shit about evolution and leave. Just because you don't respect a field and don't understand it beyond a basic level does not mean you've suddenly uncovered a massive gap in knowledge. People get PhD's in this shit, like o b v i o u s l y this field is more in depth than you basic shitbrain understanding of it. This post is literally just you being retarded and postulating but not googling it. This is why there's (probably, since I stopped going here due to how awful it was) no good threads here anymore because all the actual intellectuals looking for good conversation or the educated people left.

>t. part of my undergrad major was in evolutionary biology
>>
>>14597594
Hey man I try. Just wish the jannies would yeet the obvious trolls.
>>
>>14597177
>No, you fail/pretend it's not there via my many examples you ignore
None of your examples do and you wouldn't be able to prove that by example anyway.

>I proved it was incorrect via my immediate follow up
No you didn't, you didn't even contradict what I said.

>You can't be stupid enough to think I admitted it was rhetorical can you?
You said I have an obfuscation answer to the question immediately afterward. That means it's rhetorical.

>Sensitive != sense
This is just semantics and proves nothing about sensory organs evolving. You're being obtuse on purpose, so it's clear you understand you're not saying anything.
>>
>>14597177
>Examples are not semantics.
Proof? Examples of how you classify things are by defintion semantics. That's all you've done.
>>
>its another thread of "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it could not happen"
>>
>>14597301
>In FP
So you can't even explain what you're talking about. Thanks for admitting that. You know you can stop posting at any time right? You don't have to keep embarrassing yourself.

>It does if you are not stupid.
Not an argument. Do better.

>I babystepped you through it in the next line
You didn't, you just made a circular argument. They're useless because there is nothing to use them? Why would there be nothing to use them? Complete nonsense.

>Very weak strawman
Strawman of whom? I'm asking you why selection cannot act on photosensitive proreins in order to evolve an eye. Of course you avoided the question because you know there is no reason why it cannot occur.

>The topic has always been byproducts ie secondary chemicals to the main ones produced/used from photosenthesis.
No, the original post that mentioned byproducts simply said the initial simple structure evolved as "byproducts of reactions to light." That just means the result of a reaction with light. You're once again making up a strawman. You're a one trick pony.

>You said evolve into "specialized sensory organs"
That's not even a complete sentence and doesn't show me saying any organ can detect radiation. You of course cut out the beginning, which is a hypothetical. You're scum.

>a total falsehood
How is it false? It's not even a complete statement. It's like saying "going out for a jog" is a falsehood. LOL

>You were the first to mention the nonsense idea of radiation sensing organs
You're delusional. You were the only one who brought it up and you literally said "Your brain cells are sensitive to neutron radiation."

>Your deep confusion relies on your falsehood that "sensitive = sense [or having a sense]"
You put that in quotes as if I said that but never did. Lying scum. What I said was that cells sensitive to light sense light. It really doesn't matter to me though side this is just semantics. Reaction to light is subject to selection. The defintion of sense is irrelevant
>>
Okay, so, everybody quit babbling about religion. Waaay long ago, I’m talking Precambrian late heavy bombardment period 1.5 billion years ago, the only life on earth were single-celled prokaryotes (read: bacteria; but also including and archaea and probably other long-forgotten lineages without a central nucleus). Even at that early point in history, there were proteins coded for by DNA that existed at that time that deformed in response to light. The earliest light-capturing proteins before photosynthesis in its modern form became a thing probably behaved similarly to modern Bacteriorhodopsin, acting as simple proton pumps forcing useful molecules into the cells or useless ones out. At some point in the extremely ancient past, a very simple animal, likely before the urbilateran (read: the common ancestor of nearly all animals, except jellyfish) had a birthmark somewhere on its body composed of a forme of rhodopsin similar to modern visual purple and if a nerve from the neural net happened to run across this patch of visual purple, in addition to acting as a proton pump this simple saclike animal was now able to distinguish light from dark in a rudimentary way. Thus, a protein found basically everywhere, expressed in a mutated way, became the first eye. That’s right, the first eyes likely started as a proto-jellyfish’s third-nipple-like splotch. In a world powered by photosynthesis and soaked with light from our sun, light-detecting patches were so unbelievably useful that soon everything that could have eyes had the best eyes they could get. The complexity and range of specialization with the eyes you see today is the result of a nearly 1 billion year long genetic arms race to create bigger and better photon sensors out of preexisting biomaterials.
>>
>4chan discussion where anons meticulously greentext each other
>going nowhere
Name a more infamous duo
>>
File: come on then.jpg (9 KB, 450x351)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>14598204
Why does this always happen specifically on 'evolution isn't real' threads?
>>
>>14598082
You say quit talking about religion then you proceed to talk about religion. You can't prove any of that, it's all just faith based beliefs. Evolution is a religion, especially when you say "however many gorillion years ago", we can't observe or test that, it's not science.
>>
>>14597301
>Proving sensitive != sense. A braincell is not an organism
I never claimed they were the same and a brain cell is part of an organism. And I'm not interested in your pointless semantics.

>That segway was about what constitutes information
Right, you assumed that a brain is needed to propagate information through the body, when all that's needed is chemical reactions. And selection can work on those chemical reactions. Back to square one of you not understanding anything.

>Simply falase
Then show one that actually proves anything instead of illustrating what you define as sense.
>>
>>14597344
>being novel requires no resemblence to a prior entity
No dictionary claims this. You're again playing semantic games. If that's true, then there is no such thing as a novel painting which you previously referenced. All paintings have some feature that resemble some other painting. You can't even keep track of your own bullshit.

>The idiotc makes a distinction between "single cell" and "reactive structure."
There are structures outside of cells., as I already told you.

>where?
I quoted it immediately before terrifying to it. Nice reading comprehension.

>The word "novel" is not predicated on function like I said, proving you wrong.
I see no reason why it can't be in some cases, unless you arbitrarily restrict the definition in order to play semantic games. This is made even more tedious by the fact that he never even used the word novel. Only you did. All you can do is misrepresent other people and then misrepresent the misrepresentations until all substance is squeezed from the argument.

>So you magically know when someone on the internet dies and doesn't respond
No, where did I say I always know when someone dies? Learn how to read.
>>
>>14598409
There's plenty of fossil evidence. Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Cletus.
>>
>>14598409
Its theory based on observations of living organisms and proteins and current understanding of biology. That is not just faith
>>
>>14591662
>it is therefore immensely, and I do mean almost miraculous for a single generation to have mutated all the faculities needed for even simple vision.
Thats not how it happened christcuck
>>
>>14597476
>He is clearly pointing out declaring them to be useless in the explanation, not initially, is where you were mistaken. You quite clearly invoked that comment which was not a strawman
It absolutely is a strawman. There is no reason to assume useless byproducts from a billion trillion years ago are similar to useful products of photosynthesis today. Our understanding of the later has no bearing on our "understanding" of the hypothetical initial evolution. There are 2 explanations btw: how the useless byproducts magically became useful, and how photosynthesis products currently are involved in motion. It remains a strawman to conflate these two and say/imply an understanding of one translates to an understanding of the other.
>The other anon is very clearly pointing out you cannot declare they are useless in the explanation because other organisms or the same organism can later evolve use out of them
"LATER" evolve use. My argument is INITIALLY they are useless. And you again wrongly imply the useless byproducts are similar to the useful products directly involved in motion we can observe today. Prove they're similar via proving what was the very first byproduct "billions" of years ago, I'll wait
>Not that they are useless prior to some other use evolving, as you are strawmanning him to mean
??? Why would I create a "strawman" saying he agrees with my argument? I never claimed or relied on an assumption that another's position is that they were initially useful or useless
>At no point did anyone say anything like "they were useful initially" If you took someone to mean that, you fucked up
Never did or claimed they did, however their recurring avoidance to admit the obvious fact they would have been initially useless does strongly imply they believe they were useful. Thus I was not dishonest about anything like you dishonestly said I was. Id prefer they just acknowledge the obvious uselessness so I can move on to the next argument founded on that premise.
>>
>>14599470
>>He is clearly pointing out declaring them to be useless in the explanation, not initially, is where you were mistaken. You quite clearly invoked that comment which was not a strawman.
>It absolutely is a strawman. There is no reason to assume useless byproducts from a billion trillion years ago are similar to useful products of photosynthesis today.
Nobody said it was. Pointing out you are strawmanning someone is not a straw man.
>how the useless byproducts magically became useful, and how photosynthesis products currently are involved in motion. It remains a strawman to conflate these two and say/imply an understanding of one translates to an understanding of the other.
That is also not a straw man even if someone did it. Nobody seems to have. That was you claiming people have from the start.
>"LATER" evolve use. My argument is INITIALLY they are useless.
Nobody said they were initially useful. That was you the entire time >>14597366 and contrary to multiple anons clarifying that.
>And you again wrongly imply the useless byproducts are similar to the useful products directly involved in motion we can observe today.
No implication. Clearly reads "some other use evolving".
>??? Why would I create a "strawman" saying he agrees with my argument? I never claimed or relied on an assumption that another's position is that they were initially useful or useless
You did throughout >>14597366
>Never did or claimed they did
You did throughout >>14597366
>however their recurring avoidance to admit the obvious fact they would have been initially useless does strongly imply they believe they were useful.
Thanks for admitting you are imagining a straw man instead of asking people. Do better.
>Thus I was not dishonest about anything like you dishonestly said I was.
I said you made things up people do not believe. You admit to making things up that people do not believe (see prior quote). I pity you.
>>
>>14597538
>While they wouldn't have to be "useful" initially . . . it's not like it HAD to be useless.
I'm obviously not arguing it HAD to be useless for further evolutionary purposes (I don't believe in any of this evolving). I'm saying it's most logical in every rational sense that the byproducts would have been useless initially, but a bunch of morons have to stonewall everything I say and pretend I'm lying about something so here we are.
>(for all we know, the photosensitive protein could have had some other use beforehand or was simply inert there wasn't a lot of selective pressure to get rid of it so it stayed),
This was a premise we all agree on: photosenthesis had some other use not related to motion but the (useless) byproducts eventually were used by some magic novel structures (quite frankly, systems) to produce cell motion. If the primary photo s. products were "inert" that would make no sense and nobody is saying that. The discussion has been the byproducts being/not being useful.
>A cell uses chemical A as some sort of signalling chemical. Its presence causes some sort of behaviour or stimulates the production of another chemical or whatever else you can come up with.
Down the line, the cell evolves a new protein which is sensitive to light and when exposed to light it produces chemical A (or breaks down into byproducts, one of which is the chemical A). This new photosensitivity can now influence how the cell behaves.
I don't care to move on to other arguments until you admit it's the logical default that the byproducts were initially useless. No "playing devils advocate" or any of that bullshit. Admit they logically would have been useless then I'll address this. I don't care to play along with games where my argument is based on "hypothetical" grounds where you can just eventually deny all of them by claiming "oh the byproducts must have initially been useful then so I get to ignore all your arguments and they were all for nothing"
>>
>I'm obviously not arguing it HAD to be useless for further evolutionary purposes (I don't believe in any of this evolving). I'm saying it's most logical in every rational sense that the byproducts would have been useless initially, but a bunch of morons have to stonewall everything I say and pretend I'm lying about something so here we are.
>however their recurring avoidance to admit the obvious fact they would have been initially useless does strongly imply they believe they were useful.
You keep accusing people of believing things they do not believe. The "stonewall" consisted of people trying to figure out why you were arguing something nobody argued, and your refusal to let it go, take clarification, or ask clarification. The problem here is one of your own making. You can learn from it or further assume this counts as some "evasion" and everyone else is the problem. I don't care.

If you want to have a genuine conversation, you can start by dropping the assumptions and try asking.

This review will help you understand the framing and studies, and research, of microbial cooperation.
"The Evolution of Microbial Facilitation: Sociogenesis, Symbiogenesis, and Transition in Individuality"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.798045/full

This one specifically covers the complex suite of evidence from phylogeny and current science regarding early cellular predation. Relevant for why light sensing becomes incredibly important in cells where it may not have been before.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0019

This one reviews evidence up to 2017 regarding symbiosis in eukaryotic evolution in general.
"Symbiosis in eukaryotic evolution"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638015/

You can use researchgate and find there are even more papers (citations tab at bottom lists works citing the review). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314137441_Symbiosis_in_eukaryotic_evolution
>>
>>14597742
>None of your examples do
All do
>you wouldn't be able to prove that by example anyway
Yes I can and did
>No you didn't,
Yes I did
>didn't even contradict what I said
I did contradict what you said
>You said I have an obfuscation answer to the question immediately afterward. That means it's rhetorical.
Obfuscation does not make something rhetorical.
>This is just semantics
Show me how it is "semantics" here I'll help https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics
>and proves nothing about sensory organs evolving
It proves the retard who initially used "sense" wrong is making an invalid argument and has no idea what he's saying
>You're being obtuse on purpose
Nah, Sensitive != sense is about as clear as one can be on this board.
>>14597746
>Proof? Examples of how you classify things are by defintion semantics
That is not the definition of semantics. Read the definition above. You are huffing paint.
>>
>>14599505
>>14599530
Not sure what happened there. Must've accidentally dragged the mouse or left the post number selected, causing it to be deleted. Apologies.
>>
>>14599533
>All do
Explain how any of them do. You can't.

>Yes I can and did
Explain how.

>Yes I did
No, you didn't even contradict what I said.

>Obfuscation does not make something rhetorical.
The immediate answer to the question makes it rhetorical.

>Show me how it is "semantics"
>the study of meanings
Whether sensitive = sense is just about the meaning of words and has no substantive relevance to this discussion. Whether or not you consider sensitivity to light a "sense," it can be selected and developed by evolution.

>It proves the retard who initially used "sense" wrong is making an invalid argument
No, it proves you have no argument since you can only nitpick about word choice instead of the substance. Replace "sense" with whatever word you think would be more appropriate in your head and move on.

>Sensitive != sense is about as clear as one can be on this board.
Yes, it's clear you have no substantive argument. I'll just assume you agree that the eye is perfectly capable of evolving since you refuse to participate.

>That is not the definition of semantics.
It is. I can't tell if you're actually this stupid or trolling at this point. "Sense doesn't mean that it means this! This is an example of sense and this isn't!" No one cares. It literally says nothing about eyes evolving, just your arbitrary grammar choices.
>>
>>14597968
>you can't even explain
No I babystepped you through it did you already forget?
>you just made a circular argument.
Not circular at all.
>Theyre useless because there is nothing to use them?
Correct. An AOL free trial CD 100 years ago would be useless bc there is nothing to make use of it. This is so simple.
>Why would there be nothing to use them
BC at that exact instant in time during your fairy tail no structure existed to use them. If there was one it would be a paradoxical coincidence that the first time a byproduct existed something immediately used it.
>Complete nonsense
Your inability to copmrehend simple things does not imply something is nonsense
>Strawman of whom?
yours
>I'm asking you why selection cannot act on photosensitive proreins in order to evolve an eye
Which is strawman bc FP refered to byproducts of photo s chemical reactions, not "photosensitive proteins" or whatever you think that means
>byproducts of reactions to light." That just means the result of a reaction with light
Meaningless babble that gives zero additional explanatory power. You just swapped "byproducts" with "result" as if I didnt already know those words are effectively interchangeable in this context ROFL
>doesn't show me saying any organ can detect radiation
?? Strawman. I never made a claim regarding "any"... Your lie here >>14593432
>If an organism has certain structures that react to neutron radiation, then there is no reason why selective pressure for detecting neutron radiation couldn't guide the development of those structures into a specialized sensory organ.
Is the reference. This organ is not possible. Didn't cut out anything this time and it's still false ROFL!
>You're scum
You're so triggered, it's adorable
>You were the only one who brought it up
You brought up organs, not me, liar.
>You put that in quotes as if I said that but never did
I put it in quotes bc it's not true, retard
>cells sensitive to light sense light
invalid sentence
>>
>>14599530
>>14599715
So did you actually want resources to further your understanding, or no?
>>
>>14598675
Your replies to me are not showing (you) for some reason so I might be confusing you with someone else or miss your posts. Anyway...
>I never claimed they were
No shit I was pointing out a cell can chemically react but not have a sense or sense something and thus asking if it is an organism is irrelevant. Simple
>and a brain cell is part of an organism
Irrelevant. A sense requires a brain and network to process stimuli into information for perception. Ergo individual cells do not sense.
>Right, you assumed that a brain is needed to propagate information through the body, when all that's needed is chemical reactions
This is not an assumption and your claim is false. Chemical reactions are not information unless something is processing it. If there was no intelligence in the universe there would be no information. DNA fluorescent dyes have revealed the information of evolutionarily impossible "125 million" year old dinosaur DNA. If these same chemical reactions randomly happened somewhere else in the universe they would not constitute information because there is no intelligence processing what the chemical reaction mean.
>Then show one that actually proves anything instead of illustrating what you define as sense.
Are you finally admitting I'm right about something? haha
I did use examples that prove this. Before I exemplified that Nitro g does not sense, a leg that has no nervous system pathway to the brain (or amputated leg) does not sense, individual cells do not sense (as I further laid out in this thread).
To actually make what is commonly meant by a "semantics argument": the word "semantics" deals with the history and psychological usage of words. Merely quoting a dictionary is not technically a semantics argument, most people use the word incorrectly when they say "that's just semantics"
I could easily quote a dictionary to prove my points, too, but I rather make examples.
>>
>>14598691
>>being novel requires no resemblence to a prior entity
>No dictionary claims this.
OH what's this?!?!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/novel
>new and not resembling something formerly known or used
1st entry. Ouch.
>If that's true, then there is no such thing as a novel painting which you previously referenced. All paintings have some feature that resemble some other painting
Bullshit. I could give you an example but you'd just cry "it has molecules like other paintings" or some nonsense. We'd have to come to an agreement on what constitutes "features"
>You can't even keep track of your own bullshit.
eyeroll. I looked up the definition a couple days ago as soon as someone challenged me on what a novel cell means to make sure I was being consistent this whole time. This isn't my first rodeo where I have to educate 5 evolutiontards at the same time.
>There are structures outside of cells., as I already told you.
lol you mean like cilia? Meaningless point with zero relevance
>I quoted it immediately before terrifying to it.
Where? You did not quote a "fallacious" example of mine anywhere so I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have deleted it.
>I see no reason why it can't be in some cases
It's not predicated on function. It's that simple. You must use the phrase "novel function" to predicate the status of being novel on function like I said.
>This is made even more tedious by the fact that he never even used the word novel. Only you did
Not tedious at all I directly pointed out(in the post you just responded to)the obvious interpetation was a reference to a novel cell because he separately made reference to adding novel structures to existing cells.

>No, where did I say I always know when someone dies? Learn how to read.
If you know the difference between giving up on your stupidity and not responding vs dying and not responding then you must know if someone dies. Simple.
>>
>>14591843
i mean on that level rocks CAN smell, because rocks DO get affected by chemicals
>>
>>14592411
>Insanely complex features.
bruh it's just a glorified soap bubble
>>
File: 1KvjSgziglZM.png (15 KB, 383x269)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>14599927
Hahahahaha okay fine but I hate you for it
>>
>>14597481
>I inserted
>and therefore it wasn't 100% your words
correct
>means I'm the dishonest one
correct
>>
>>14599946
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

No, anon, it just means you're a jackass. Obviously the reference of being your own words means the quotes were not rewritten to say something contrary to their source post. Choosing to interpret someone badly to feel smarter does not make anyone else dishonest.
>>
>>14599495
>Nobody said it was
Laughable. Implying that the translation of photosynthesis products into cell motion is well understood today has application to understanding how the hypothetical original (useless) byproducts evolved to translate byproducts into motion requires the assumption the original byproducts were similar to todays bi/products. If they are not similar then there is no point in mentioning our current understanding because its not applicable to something different. There is simply no way around this fact and you dont have to believe it for it to be true.
>That is also not a straw man
Its the same fucking thing as above wtf do you mean "also"?? Its absolutely a strawman bc if they are not similar then our understanding of one means nothing for understanding other.
>even if someone did it
They did read above
>Nobody said they were initially useful
My argument never required someone to claim they were, it was simply my argument they were useless. Why do you keep desperately repeating this irrelevancy?
>That was you the entire time
The entire time I was claiming they were useful? How fucking dumb are you?
>No implication. Clearly reads "some other use evolving"
HAHA some other use for similar or DISSIMILAR byproducts? You have cornered yourself, retard.
>You did throughout
>You did throughout
The mental vomit of (your?) black text from that post is worth less than nothing,I easily refuted it. Its just repeating the "irrelevancy" I mentioned above
>Thanks for admitting you are imagining a straw man instead of asking people
schizo nonsense. Even if someone did claim they were initially useful it wouldn't be a strawman according to anything I've said
>I said you made things up people do not believe.
I've proven their statements rely on these assumptions, they dont have to believe them for that to be true
>You admit to making things up
HAHA!
>I pity you
I don't think about you at all. All of you delusional evolutiontards are identical to me.
>>
>>14599975
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
what a laughably irrelevant link
>No, anon, it just means you're a jackass
You say this as if I'm not trying to be a jackass...
>Obviously the reference of being your own words means
You said "entirely" so it wasn't just a reference, it was a reference with a claim, and the claim was a lie. The post was not entirely my words.
>the quotes were not rewritten to say something contrary to their source post
Desperate sophistry. You lied
>Choosing to interpret someone badly
There is no interpretation that makes you not a liar. "Entirely" does not mean "mostly." The end.

Sincerely,
-Jackass
>>
File: Rayr4tYs.png (49 KB, 176x181)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>14600195
>>14600220
Whatever makes you feel better anon. I'm not giving you more attention.
>I don't think about you at all.
That is why I pity you.
>>
>>14599715
>No I babystepped
No, you just stated with no justification that there would be no structure that benefited. The structure that benefits would be the cell itself. Can you explain why you think a photosensitive protein would have no effect? I don't think you can. But you're going to continue to pretend like you already did. Pathetic.

>Not circular at all.
It is. You're saying they're useless newscaster they're useless.

>Correct.
Proof?

>An AOL free trial CD 100 years ago would be useless bc there is nothing to make use of it.
And what does this have to do with cells?

>BC at that exact instant in time during your fairy tail no structure existed to use them.
You're just repeating what I asked you to explain. Why would the existing structure always be unaffected by photosensitive proteins? You seem desperate to avoid explaining yourself.

>Your inability to copmrehend simple things
There's nothing to comprehend because you won't give an explanation.

>yours
How am I strawmanning myself?

>Which is strawman bc FP refered to byproducts of photo s chemical reactions
No, it referred to the *appearance of the structure* as a byproduct. You've been misrepresenting it this whole time.

>I never made a claim regarding "any"
LOL, I didn't say you did. Learn how to read English. It means there are not any organs I said can detect radiation.

>Your lie here >>14593432 (You) #
That's a hypothetical and it's correct.

>This organ is not possible.
Because?

>You brought up organs, not me
Organs =/= radiation sensing organs

>I put it in quotes bc it's not true
So when you said "your falsehood" you were lying.

>invalid sentence
How so?
>>
>>14599821
>No shit I was pointing out a cell can chemically react but not have a sense or sense something and thus asking if it is an organism is irrelevant.
Is part of an organism, so it's relevant.

>A sense requires a brain and network to process stimuli into information for perception
Information can propagate and be processed to spur an action without a brain. Why is this not a sense? When a simple organism reacts to chemical or temperature gradients in a strategic way, we call that a sense.

>Chemical reactions are not information unless something is processing it
I didn't say chemical reactions are information, I said they propagate information. Learn how to read. The information is in the environment, like a chemical, temperature , or light gradient. The organism processes that information and outputs an action, like moving closer towards food, warmth or light. Purely through chemical reactions, without a brain.

>If there was no intelligence in the universe there would be no information.
DNA encodes information regardless of any intelligence. Organisms detect chemical gradients and move through them regardless of intelligence.

>DNA fluorescent dyes have revealed the information of evolutionarily impossible "125 million" year old dinosaur DNA
LOL, did you read that on your Creationist Moms facebook group?

>If these same chemical reactions randomly happened somewhere else in the universe they would not constitute information because there is no intelligence processing what the chemical reaction mean.
Why does DNA exist if it doesn't contain information? You're just making up another bullshit definition.

>Are you finally admitting I'm right about something?
Can you actually make a post without misrepresenting someone else?

>>Then show one that actually proves anything instead of illustrating what you define as sense.
>does not sense
>does not sense
>does not sense
LOL, you just proved my point.
>>
>>14599896
>>new and not resembling something formerly known or used
>being novel requires no resemblence to a prior entity
These are not the same. The first refers to a specific lack of resemblance. For example, a novel painting can use the same colors as other paintings. It can depict the same subject as other paintings. Because it doesn't resemble those other paintings in some significant aspect, it's considered novel. You already know this since you used the example of novel paintings but then conveniently ignored this when you needed to deny that modification can produce novelty.

>I could give you an example but you'd just cry "it has molecules like other paintings" or some nonsense.
LOL, you're the one who created that ridiculous standard and now you're trying to blame me for it:

>If you modify an entity it will resemble it unless you modify 100% of everything
By your own argument, a painting cannot be novel unless 100% of everything is different.

>lol you mean like cilia?
No, the extracellular matrix.

>It's not predicated on function
Because?

>You must use the phrase
No, I don't have to use your arbitrary semantics.

>the obvious interpetation was a reference to a novel cell because he separately made reference to adding novel structures to existing cells.
An obvious misrepresentation. Thanks for admitting that you made up the claim about novel cells.

>If you know the difference between giving up on your stupidity and not responding vs dying and not responding then you must know if someone dies.
Doesn't follow. Knowing the difference between a boy and a girl doesn't tell you which one a woman is pregnant with. And you already claimed you would choose not to respond to my posts for some arbitrary reason, so the cause is not even in question. You can make up whatever rules you want, no one has to respect them.
>>
>>14591662
>The organism must have, at a point in its evolution, went from not being able to sense light to being able sense light with no in between.
Depends on your definition of "sensing light". Light interacts with chemistry, which causes responses. Bacteria and plants can sense light too, just not in the way eyes can.
>But the question is, how did that intial simple structure appear? The organism must have, at a point in its evolution, went from not being able to sense light to being able sense light with no in between.
That's because you just assume there was no "in-between". Jellyfish have eyes that are made of just two cells.
>The alternative that the organism would instead coincidentally evolve a structure bit by bit each generation that ultimately culminates in a sensory organ, might be even more unlikely. As it would have to do this with no evolutionary pressure (each iteration wouldn't add to its fitness),
Sensing light has obvious fitness advantages. Forget vertebrates and invertebrates. Bacteria sense light because they survive better in dark environments. Plants sense light because they can change the direction of their growth to grow towards light.
>The same could be said of hearing, smelling, thinking, etc
Yes it could



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.