Evolution of Eyes

Nope. Google "pre-cambrian fossils"Just a moment...
Ediacara Hills, AustraliaCanada, Ukraine and Australia all have pre-cambrian fossils.The oldest fossils are of cyano-bacteria, simple organisms without eyes. Eyes may be hard to detect\identify in some fossils -- if they are soft parts, for instance. Eyes have also evolved or re-evolved several times, as shown by the different types of eyes and different arrangements of the basic elements.Is a light-sensitive patch of skin on a flat worm an eye?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

okaaaaay, we need simple steps? We have evidence of a lot of life before the cambrian, starting with simple bacteria and proceeding to ediacarians, some with eyes.One line replies to non-essential parts of the post just demonstrate a reluctance to deal with information, particularly information that contradicts your position.Anything to say about the rest of Message 5? How "complex" is a patch of light sensitive skin?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks for the response, Lyston. Not really (though I'd be interested in why you think so, but that could be another thread).We are talking about using the sense of sight - that's what eyes are for. A light sensitive patch senses light. The benefit of an eye is that it allows the owner to sense something and organism without one can't. Thus if a patch of light sensitive skin offers an advantage to an organism it will be selected for, and any modifications that improve it will also tend to be selected.The question thus comes down to what qualifies as an eye. What would a most primitive eye be like.Then you need to consider if you could find evidence of that kind of eye development in the fossil record, and here it would be difficult to do for pre-cambrian life. You equate the precambrian with complex life, and this is false. Life existed before, and had similar "complexity" to cambrian life, just not shells and hard parts.But if you really want to get into distinctions between complex and simple you are going to have to define what you mean by "complex" and where you start. Is a two cell organism complex? Three?Given that there are several different kinds of single cell organisms that can sense light, and that daily rise and fall in a water column in response to light, the development of an "eye" starts with a single cell organism.How complex an organism do you need? or is it just a matter of perspective. In other words you didn't do it, you did not look to see how complex pre-cambrian life actually is. Even with the links I gave you in Message 5 and repeated in Message 12.HINT: You are wrong. Here's just ONE example:Spriggina

quote:

---

​

The striking Vendian fossil Spriggina (shown here) and its close relative Marywadea make up the Spriggina, a clade of soft-bodied organisms that are restricted to the Precambrian. Spriggina is known largely from the Ediacara Hills of south Australia, near Adelaide. The organism had a crescent-shaped head and numerous segments tapering to the posterior end; it is only about three centimeters long.

​

Spriggina was described as an annelid (segmented worm), but it now appears to be related to the arthropods, although Spriggina had no hard parts, and it is unclear exactly what kind of appendages it had. Compare it to our pictures of trilobites and see what you think!

---

Do you think Spriggina may have had eyes like trilobite eyes? And there are as many answers to how eyes evolved as there are different kinds of eyes.From Investigator: Eye's Silly Design (from the Silly Design Institute):

quote:

---

Copepod:

​

This is a little critter that (shown here as a larvae) has a single eye and a single photoreceptor ... and yet it has a lens.

​

Why would it have a lens with only one photoreceptor (that is basically an on\off signal processor)? Because the photoreceptor is at the end of a little stalk that can move back and forth and up and down, covering the area that a more complete retina would cover with this single sensor. The stalk dances for the light.

​

Copepods are predators and use this dancing eye to build up a picture of their surroundings in much the same way that a laser light show can produce an image with one dancing light, or a television can produce an image with a dancing beam (of course both examples are commonly used to expand the intelligence of their viewers ... or is it just for silly entertainment?).

---

Again this comes down to the question of how complex is complex again. In Message 1 you said: So what we see is evidence of organisms complex enough before the cambrian to evolve eyes. What we see is that eyes are simple.You also quoted a pamphlet that said:

quote:

---

This fossil fact (and thousands others) falsifies the Theory of Evolution by complex systems appearing suddenly without any transitions.

---

And the evidence we have, is that this statement is totally false. Not only are there transitions TO cambrian trilobites, there are transitions with eyes.We can easily believe that their "thousands others" are also equally bogus misrepresentations of the reality. Did you learn anything in order to write it? If not, then my answer is no.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Ah yes, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny ... Haeckel would be so proud ...Seems more like (fill in your favorite) that don't know much about evolution recapitulate all those discarded concepts that have already been invalidated?Welcome to the fray godservant. A good place to (start) learn(ing) about evolution is berkeley's website.Meanwhile consider this:(1) no two organisms are identical
(2) any organism that is more capable of survival and breeding than another organism will more often than not survive and breed more than the other
(3) because of (1), (2) inevitably happens. Actually most fertilized eggs fail to reach maturity. And what would qualify as "new" or "dramatic" for you? Have you really thought about this?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •