Let me answer: it can't.

It's why there are many defects with vision at birth and none that enable the person to see at a greater capacity than any other human: the lenses have to be predisposed towards one another so one can see reality as it exists.

There is no surer way to upset the entire argument of natural selection than by the existence of something that has multiple lenses that gives sight. This sort of relationship is impossible to biologically evolve.

If it was one thing? Sure, you could say it's possible. But the eye is two lenses in one object with relation to each other, and the refractive capacity of the one is perfectly recursive towards the other so that you see the original image as it is predisposed for us to see.

File: 271_1024x572.jpg (109 KB, 1024x510)

109 KB JPG

I got you fäm, here is the chart.

>>16548786
Apparently you don't understand how refraction or sight works, and apparently the person who made that picture didn't either.

You see, in order to see reality as it exists, you need all of the different impressions as exist in reality to be centered much closer together on the surface of your eye, than they are in reality. As a result, you need a curved surface to do this. But unfortunately, this curved surface refracts the rays and necessarily turns them upside down. You need another surface, within the liquid of the eye, to re-right the image before it makes an impression on your optic nerve, which is implicit in the construction of the eye.

Apparently the people who believe in Evolution missed first grade geometry.

>>16548793
Apparantly you are dumb because you don't understand that this chart shows different stages of the evolution of sight which developed several times over and completely independently from each other in organisms, that's why we can easily find related animals that all are at different stages of sight development, from primitive photoreceptors that can only detect whether it's day or night to complex lense-based eyes.

>>16548793
Reality cannot be "seen" retard.

>>16548795
The complex lens based eyes had to develop in tandem with the same proportions as the other lens though. I would appeal to the first post, there's only one way to do vision correctly, and very many to do it wrong. And we have no recorded examples of any retards or mutants being born with an extra lens, or anything resembling that, within the confines of their eye.

Their so-called 'strong genes' have none of those components.

>>16548797
This post is non-sense, complete sight is just an adaption to a specific evolutionary niche. If a primitive organism can just do fine with some photoreceptors then there won't be any adaptive pressure to development more complex optical systems, there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with this, in fact there even are many examples of organisms whose ancestors were at the end stages of optical development and then went back in ability because the environment they adapted to didn't require the same investment into optical organs at the expense of olfactory or electrochemical detection systems, such as many animals in dark environments.

>>16548793
>You need another surface, within the liquid of the eye, to re-right the image before it makes an impression on your optic nerve
You're dumb. This is done by the brain, which is why some injuries can cause people's perspective to "flip" after brain injury or surgery.
Why are creationists so incredibly stupid? You'd think there'd be at least 1 who knows what he's talking about, but I guess if there was he wouldn't be a creationist anymore. Ha!

>>16548793
Nothing needs to be "re-righted" you retard. To the processing in the brain, it makes no difference whether the image formed on the retina is inverted or not as long as it's consistently the same. Even middle school children have no problem understanding this.

>>16548821
Pretty much. The dude is a retard. The chart shows that the optical nerve co-developed with the evolution of the optical organ. If he had known anything about anatomy he would have known that the optical nerve is not a classical nerve but rather can be considered an extension of the brain.

File: 1735832500335804.jpg (90 KB, 957x621)

90 KB JPG

>>16548793
retarded larping faggot

>>16548821
>This is done by the brain
There are two sections of the eye which refract what you're seeing, one section flips everything, and the other section reflips it.

The impressions on the optic nerve are literally the right way in the eye.

>>16548878
That's simply not true.

>>16548883
Yeah the surface of the eye, because it's concave, refracts the optic rays of sight, which are necessarily re-refracted by the lens past the cornea, and then these rays leave impressions on the optic nerve that are the correct position.

Whenever a ray of light or sight encounters a convex surface, the light is refracted. That is essentially how sight works.

>>16548891
*convex

>>16548891
>which are necessarily re-refracted by the lens past the cornea
This isn't correct, refraction is something else entirely, and since you're too dumb to understand that I'm not surprised you're too dumb to know that it's the brain that does the flipping.
Riddle me this, why would BRAIN damage change the orientation of your vision if both lenses are still in place?

>>16548896
>This isn't correct
It is, if you take an eye, and you look through another organism's eye, whether it be a human beings, or another creature's, you can see the impressions of objects before it, that it would make on the optic nerve.

Again, there are infinite ways to do vision incorrectly, but why haven't we been met with someone whose vision far EXCEEDS the normal? You are feeding my point exactly. Vision is perfected, and things that deviate only worsen the relationship of the lenses.

>>16548900
Do you think that the reflections you see OUTSIDE the eye is light ENTERING the eye and bouncing off the sensors?
Jesus, creationists, send better spammers.

>>16548786
Is now a bad time to point out human eyes evolved as an outgrowth of the brain and not like this bullshit?

That's why humans have blind spots and molluscs don't.

>>16548900
If this is true then how come we have proven it wrong by strapping mirrors on people's eyes for a few weeks where their brains have started de-flipping the image back and adapting to the mirrors?

>>16548903
That's not what I said at all. What I mentioned was that what you see when you view another organism's eye, is the impression that the vision of reality leaves on their optic nerves.

Are you saying that we flip THAT around inside our brains?

Then answer me this: why does it match up with what reality looks like, because if we really just flip it around inside our head, the image at the back of another animal's eye, leaving impressions on the optic nerve, wouldn't look exactly the same as the surrounding environment.

>>16548909
I feel bad for any retard who is doing this experiment to try and prove creationism wrong.

>>16548914
Do you think the reflection you see in someone else's eye is the light that is hitting the back of their eye?

>>16548914
>doing this

What do you mean by that? This shit has been proven like 20-25 years ago.

>>16548917
No, what I'm saying is the eye taken outside of the organism. If you look at the eye taken outside of the organism, and you look at the back of the eye, for instance an Ox or some kind of animal with an eye similar to human's, then you can see exactly what they are viewing, and the larger the eyeball the better.

In fact, viewed in the micro, you can see the optical impressions that are being transmitted to the nerve.

>>16548926
Look up literally any literature online
They'll all say you're wrong
Here's a begginer's guide, go to 14.2 "The Image Forming Process," and weep for how wrong you are.
https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s2/chapter14.html

>>16548933
So, assuming that experiment that you can perform is somehow incorrect, and assuming as you do, that our brain reverses the images found in reality, then how do you perceive that this developed? If evolution is correct, even that process had to develop in tandem. Those two properties had to develop within themselves, that if the optic impressions utilizing vision were reversed via the internal mental processes, then this was a very rapid process to do all of a sudden, considering there would be no reason to do it at all, if there wasn't a correct orientation for it to have.

Hopefully you understand that normally, especially since we are talking about water, the things that something evolving this capacity could see, could easily be reveresed with no adverse applications to right it again. That organism also very likely did not have the developed processes humans have to reverse that image in the first place, if you are saying we even need to do that in the first place.

I'm sorry, you're just appealing to common arguments about evolution, which at the end of the day is an unverifiable theory. I apologize you can't understand how the interposition of two circular surfaces refracts different optical rays. It doesn't surprise me that people who believe in evolution think that as well.

>be OP
>make false claims about 5th grade biology
>somehow this proves that evolution is false or something
>get proven wrong
>refuse to accept that both your premise and conclusion have been utterly debunked

>>16548945
>If evolution is correct, even that process had to develop in tandem

Exactly or do you think it's a fucking coincidence that complex optical systems in animals always correspond to a complex nervous system? lmao

>>16548945
>unverifiable theory
God you're dense.
You mean "unfalsifiable" and that's not even true, there are many falsification criteria and no one has ever done it, there is no evidence it is wrong and plenty it is right.
>But I don't understand it
Read this chart from left to right, and that traces our understanding of the evolution of the eye. >>16548786
Helpfully, it even shows you modern creatures that have those sorts of eyes currently alive today, so you can relate the drawings with real animals.
>>16548947
He literally thinks evolution is the same as his magic tree growing new animals on day 1

>>16548947
Here's the problem with that post, you didn't read a single bit of the other part of it.

>>16548946
I referenced a verifiable test proving that the rays reaching the back of your eye are not reversed. I could give a rats ass about what you think something might be.

>>16548949
Unfortunately you're doing nothing to disprove the fact that evolution can never be observed. That is the single most important fact you will never understand.

You even admit that it's not unfalsifiable. You know the weakness of your 'theory'.

Unlike gravity, laws of mechanics, motion, astrophysics, evolution has no way of showing that it is occuring.

>>16548953
We actually did observe evolution already. The longterm E. Coli experiment where E. Coli cells where replicated 80k times have resulted in some E. Coli colonies to develop new adaptations, like for example one E. Coli colony did develop the ability to.digest citrates in addition to glucose.

>>16548954
We can observe different breeds of dogs over time as well.

Natural selection =/= artificial selection

>>16548951
>I referenced a verifiable test proving that the rays reaching the back of your eye are not reversed.
And it was verified false, read literally anything about how the eye works. I already posted a helpful link, just for you!
I promise it's so easy a read even YOU could understand it.
>waah he didn't read my wrong post
And you didn't read anything at all, you just ignored it because in your mind you already know it PROVES you wrong. You don't even cope with it and try to justify it, you just ignore it.
>the fact that evolution can never be observed.
Lab grown bacteria becoming resistant to new medicine.
Nylon eating bacteria (nylon didn't exist for the entire lifetime of earth until the last century, totally novel mutation)
>it's not unfalsifiable
Yes, that's how science works. You're literally the dumbest person posting on this board at this moment. Look up falsifiability in relation to scientific theories.
>evolution has no way of showing that it is occuring.
My list, cont:
single cell to multi cell bacteria absorved in the lab
ring species (look this one up for sure)
new species of darwins' finches
the entire fossil record in your back yard right now

>>16548955
There was no deliberate selection applied by humans for the cells to develop this specific adaptation like in dog races.

>>16548957
>And it was verified false
By whom?

And besides you obviously didn't care to verify it or not verify it, you are too busy reading summations of observations about others.

Think about this, if you take rays of optical vision and you refract them on the surface of a sphere, are they not flipped? In fact, in order to reach the inner part of the eye in the first place, that inner lens, they are necessarily flipped when they contact the outer spherical nature of the eye. The pupil that you have contracts or expands with the muscles, you have to see that to focus on something small, the items you are observing are all collected on the surface of your eye, then once they meet the eye, they are inverted, what do you think happens when they meet the lens inside of the cornea?

>Lab grown bacteria becoming resistant to new medicine
artificial selection =/= natural selection

This is single handedly the dumbest evolutionist I have ever communicated with. Unfortunately, you don't understand even how vision works.

>>16548959
By surrounding those cells with certain bacteria, they are applying a process to those cells that would not otherwise have naturally existed, you fucking dumbass.

Learn to think.

>>16548957
>the entire fossil record in your back yard right now
Also this is just conjecture. I mean you realize that right? The amount of fossils of certain of the so called 'dinosaurs' found is always abysmally small in comparison to however many should have existed.

It's obviously grasping at straws. This so called 'air tight' theory has caused more social decay than anything else, though.

It has contributed to Eugenics, one of the worst philosophies of mankind, the heir to the German empire and Japanese culture, somewhat. Those are obviously only for retards, right?

>>16548966
Look at the link I posted, it even shows you the movement of the lens with the inner eye muscles
Literally it's all there, I even told you the exact section.

>waaah I don't like one example so I'll ignore the rest
>>16548967
>waaah I don't understand the basics of the experiment you're talking about
>>16548969
>waaah I don't understand fossil formation
Interesting, have you read the link I posted yet? Feel free to take the photos from the site and explain where you think it went wrong.

>>16548970
That's cute, I like to back up my arguments with logic and examples. You like to back up your arguements with ad hominem insults and links to other people.

I can see whose side is winning, and it isn't going to be evolution.

>>16548974
>examples
You've posted none, I posted one
>logic
Again, you've posted none.

So, just to be clear, you can't respond to the link I posted about the workings of the eye because you know nothing about it, is that right?

>>16548900
>but why haven't we been met with someone whose vision far EXCEEDS the normal?
Have you ever heard of a hawk or eagle?
>Vision is perfected, and things that deviate only worsen the relationship of the lenses
Then why is our vision so garbage compared to so many other animals like birds of prey?

>>16548977
This, plus birds have a wider visual spectrum than humans do, and a better lung system, and a better cardiovascular system
If there is a god, birds are his favorite

>>16548908
Doesn’t really change much, the point of that chart is not about how human eyes evolved but to show that the idea of irreducible complexity is incorrect

>>16548953
>Unfortunately you're doing nothing to disprove the fact that evolution can never be observed
If this were the case they would never need to develop a new flu shot. Also there’s plenty of other examples like both speciation and species collapse in different groups of Darwin’s finches
>>16548966
>artificial selection =/= natural selection
The mechanism is identical. You people always say “why can’t it be done in a lab?” only to say this when it is done in a lab
>>16548969
>The amount of fossils of certain of the so called 'dinosaurs' found is always abysmally small in comparison to however many should have existed
It’s almost like fossilisation is a rare occurence. Also, if dinosaurs were all suddenly buried in Noah’s flood then shouldn’t their bones be far more common? I thought that was the running theory for creationists

File: Dorudon.jpg (33 KB, 1024x299)

33 KB JPG

>whales with legs

>>16548993
This nigga walking
This nigga on his way
He's ambulating
He's moving his feets
If you catch my drift

File: IMG_3783.jpg (13 KB, 849x361)

13 KB JPG

Gotdamfuckinhwaleswitlegsimtellinyou

>>16548793
Apparently you are a retard

>>16548967
You just confused the experiment with another lmao, learn to read. Failed 5th grade biology and English apparently. This happened via mutation.

File: ijms-24-12090-g003.png (3.93 MB, 4325x3766)

3.93 MB PNG

>>16548780
if eyes were designed by an intelligent creator, an argument that I assume your question is related to, then why was a flawed design chosen?
for example, as you can see in picrel, the vascular anatomy of the human eye is retarded.
light has to pass through those veins and arteries before hitting the retina; why not just stick them at the other side?
so if it wasn't a product of intelligent design, what other than evolution could have brought the eye into existence?

>>16548780
>If biological evolution is real, then how did the eye evolve?
by evolution obviously.

File: 76853723509213.gif (640 KB, 200x157)

640 KB GIF

>>16548793
Put down the blunt, bro, that shit aint for you

evolution follows a primordial fractal embedded and compressed in particles themselves
it's from where life derives its directives, instead of merely engaging in trial and error