Evolution of Eyes

As suggested by several people, I am starting a new thread for the Evolution of Eyes. To get the ball rolling, a pamphlet that I have says: Although it exaggerates with the "thousands others", I think the eye thing might hold some truth to it. I looked up Trilobites on Wikipedia, and while I skimmed through most of it, I read the part about eyes.The eyes of the organism is very similar to the Ophiocoma Wendtii's eyes, something that exists today.Cambrian, I believe, is the oldest fossil layer with signs of complex organisms. The eyes are complex organs and found in ancient times. So I'm making this thread to discuss the evolution of such eyes (and others later).So, let's continue, shall we?Edited by Lyston, : For the Admin

Fixed.

Close, but no. More of, from what I understand from the pamphlet "That was pretty complex for back then, seeing as organisms still have such a structure."

Hence the "Complex organisms" part, not "simple organisms".

Yeah, I saw that before making this thread. I'm curious about the transition between "c" and "d" on that.

This is a really helpful reply. Thank you.Alright, still on the "c" and "d" part. How would the fluid start to secrete? You said it would start automatically due to normal growth. Are you saying that it would be something like trapped embryo fluid or something like that inside? Or are you saying that something will secrete the fluid into the space? The embryo fluid one seems more plausible because the automatically secrete thing would be like cupping your hands, sealing them, and then they would suddenly fill with fluid in the space between them. Can you clarify this part for me please?

But aren't they both just a cluster of lenses that group together to form an eye? The placing is different, as they are different species, but to me they sound like the same general idea.

My words were "curious" not "see, your wrong because it doesn't make sense". I wanted an understanding of how it happened, or as you would say, how scientists pieced it together.

Not very much seeing as to how it is the first stage of the evolution of eyes according to the photo. That would be like asking "are apes human?" I know that there is signs of life before the Cambrian time period. That is, however, simple life. If you want answers to everything to message 5, here you go: This part is contradicted by you. I said Cambrian is the oldest with complex life, you said no, Precambrian has simple life. This would be like someone going "Hey, this is the oldest painting found" then someone else going "Nope, google statues". That would make the guy confused because he was talking about paintings (IE complex organisms). Now if he said "this is the oldest art (oldest life)" then you would have a reasonable argument. The only other sentence in this half of your post is proof about Precambrian that I don't need.As for the other half of your post: What is there to say to this? You say it may be hard to identify, but they have identified a type of eye in Trilobites. I'm not saying that eyes don't exist (in which you would have a reasonable argument if I did). Then you say eyes have evolved or re-evolved several times. I say good, that's why we are here: to discuss that, not debate if it happened or not. I want to know how it would have happened (and Equinox gave a very nice answer for that).Is this a long enough answer for you?Enjoy.Edited by Lyston, : Misquote

Thanks for the quick response (and short too!). As for what you are saying, would organisms back them sweat? And wouldn't that sweat be because of the heat your hands generate? What if it was very cool inside that space? I don't think you would still sweat. As for the blister part, that would make sense, but if that were to happen, would the thin membrane have to pop every so often to let fluid out or something? But that would be our (the human) bodies. We make blisters, but they can't stay because the growth of our skin will push them out or shed it. I'm not doubting this, btw, just curious and unable to see it clearly.

I get what you are saying, but to me they sound like the same KIND of compound eyes. Maybe, instead of graphite and diamonds, I'm looking at gold and fools gold. Can you explain the differences to me please? I'm looking at this as Cat Eye vs Dog Eye (I know you won't like this example as the two kinds of eyes right there are very different, but to me, the form is very similar).

You posted before me, but I think you just answered my post. That's weird. Alright, I get what you are saying. Trilobite eyes and Brittlestar eyes are generally similar, but not the same.

Alright, I must say that I am sorry for not spending more time here. I've been very, very busy, trying to juggle around my priorities the best I could, and this got moved to second to last. I have read through most of this, with (as molbiogirl said) the exception of most links.If you have something that you would like for me to directly address, reply to this exact message and I will give my best answer ASAP. I will be in this rush until Mid-July, so again, I am sorry.For now, I will say (for the pamphlet comments) that I am sure you won't find the pamphlet on the internet. It was handed to me by a creationist, and I happened to have read through it (honestly, it was that pamphlet that led me to search for an EvC website). You will not find more about what it says on the eyes even if you were holding the thing. It's called "Six Things Evolutionists Do Not Want You To Know" with 'The Trilobite Eye' being number 5. I would need a new thread to post the other topics mentioned in it. I wouldn't withhold information from you. I'm here for answers, not to prove a point.Again, if you have something you want me to address, reply to this message. I will, however, read the other messages whenever possible (so don't think I'm ignoring them), but if you want me to answer a specific question, tell me.

I actually already knew that from reading the wikipedia article. But, this brings up a new question for me. From between the early eyeless and the more complex-eyed trilobites, are there any signs of the "in between"? I'm not saying "gap means wrong", but I'm sure that their should be some signs of the in between if they have found both eyeless and more complex-eyed in a million(?) year gap.If someone could post a link that discusses this, it would be much appreciated.