Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of the Eye
MonarchzMan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 55 (57363)
09-23-2003 11:06 PM


Could someone explain to me how an eye evolved with such complex network of enzymes and such?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 09-23-2003 11:12 PM MonarchzMan has not replied
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 2:25 AM MonarchzMan has not replied
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2003 7:20 AM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 55 (57367)
09-23-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MonarchzMan
09-23-2003 11:06 PM


Good grief! Again? A century or more after it was put to bed?
For a quick cover of the evolution of the eye see:
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for April 1999
As for the enzymes and such that isn't specific to the eye. Can you refer to the particular enzymes that you consider to be a problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MonarchzMan, posted 09-23-2003 11:06 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 55 (57406)
09-24-2003 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MonarchzMan
09-23-2003 11:06 PM


There was a study once that I saw where they set up a GA to evolve an eye; they programmed in the ability to create a few types of components - transparent layers, light sensitive cells, etc. It started out with an eyespot, then developed a thin layer of transparent material, then the eyespot started to curve inward, then the thin layer began to form a lens... (etc). Each increment just happened to be positively correlated with better eyesight.
I can probably track down the article if you'd like.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MonarchzMan, posted 09-23-2003 11:06 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 55 (57451)
09-24-2003 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MonarchzMan
09-23-2003 11:06 PM


MonarchzMan writes:
quote:
Could someone explain to me how an eye evolved with such complex network of enzymes and such?
Just do some research and you'll find lots of information.
Here's on place to start:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
By the way, you did know that the evolution of the eye is one of the examples given in Darwin's Origin of Species?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MonarchzMan, posted 09-23-2003 11:06 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 2:49 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 5 of 55 (57507)
09-24-2003 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
09-24-2003 7:20 AM


Le Fairytale Grandeure
I don't think MonarchzMan was looking for "just-so" stories to explain away the problem. Your citation includes this brazen claim:
quote:
"according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
Where is the proper citation for this "evidence"? Is the author afraid someone might actually look at the math and find it to be compeltely bogus?
Is this what you guys call "science"?
To make matters worse, evolutionists were forced to admit that the eye must have evolved down 40 seperate, independent paths becuase of the "convergence" problem where similarities could not be explained via common decent!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2003 7:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-24-2003 6:27 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 09-24-2003 8:16 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2003 5:53 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
MonarchzMan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 55 (57523)
09-24-2003 5:10 PM


I guess I am looking for how the interactions between rods and cones and all the other specialized cells could have evolved.
Rrhain, I have seen that website before, and showed it to this creationist and he didn't accept it.
Thanks for everyone's help otherwise.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 5:36 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 7 of 55 (57526)
09-24-2003 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MonarchzMan
09-24-2003 5:10 PM


Again, you need to be more specific. What interaction between rods and cones are you talking about? Are you talking about how a rod or a cone could evolve? Or how one type of cone could differentiate from another? Or the concept of rods, cones, and other parts of the eye evolving in tandem?
We need specifics to be able to get you what you're looking for.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MonarchzMan, posted 09-24-2003 5:10 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
MonarchzMan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 55 (57531)
09-24-2003 6:07 PM


Ok, here is what the guy said that he's looking for(and his response to Rrhain's website)
"Ive seen this website before, but all it says is how you could evolve the apparatus, it doesnt say how you could evolve all the complex reactions and molecular changes, etc. Evolution cannnot support the evolution of the eye when you look at all the extremely complicated processes involved. All the rod and cone cells, with all the reactions invovling vitamin A, alcohol and many other proteins, you cannot say it evolved through random mutation and natural selection. Its impossible, Darwin accepted the fact that it couldn't be done, and it has yet to be proved by modern evolutionists."
So I guess I'm looking for how the interactions between cells could have evolved.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 6:49 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 55 (57538)
09-24-2003 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Fred Williams
09-24-2003 2:49 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
Your citation includes this brazen claim:
quote:
"according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
Where is the proper citation for this "evidence"?
Most likely it's A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve, Nilsson DE, Pelger S., Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1994 Apr 22;256(1345):53-8; a paper with which anyone with slight knowledge with the theory of eye evolution is familiar. Full text with no figures available here.
Is the author afraid someone might actually look at the math and find it to be compeltely bogus?
More likely the author is writing to inform a general audience and not writing a technical paper. Did you attempt to contact the author and ask for a reference?
Is this what you guys call "science"?
That particular page is not a scientific paper, it's a popularization. It's not incorrect, it's just not rigorous, in the interest of clarity.
To make matters worse, evolutionists were forced to admit that the eye must have evolved down 40 seperate, independent paths becuase of the "convergence" problem where similarities could not be explained via common decent!
Yup; but that doesn't make matters worse, except perhaps for creationists. It indicates that evolution of somehting as useful as an eye is essemtially guaranteed. No problem for the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 2:49 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 8:30 PM JonF has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 10 of 55 (57541)
09-24-2003 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MonarchzMan
09-24-2003 6:07 PM


In short, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and decided to name some random parts of the eye and random chemicals to prove his point?
Let's take a look at this. Vitamin A aldehyde acts as a light absorbing pigment. Of course, vitamin A is used all over the body, in - in the skin around bodily openings, for example. I'd be surprised if it took more than a few BP mutation to attach an aldehyde to a gene duplicate. I'm not sure what they're talking about concerning alcohol - are they talking about the effect of drinking on vision? If so, that's a neural issue. Which proteins is the person concerned about? Ospins, perhaps? Any protein that initially interacted with vitamin A in any manner could easily become an ospin - it just needs a new piece of functionality tagged on which causes it to trigger a response. Ospins from over 30 different species, from flies to humans have been examined. Guess what? The similarity between different ospins (as always) matched the evolutionary tree. There are analogues to the common segments between different ospins in bacteria which are unrelated to light detection - small mutations in these proteins made them trigger a response when the variant of vitamin A is triggered. The rod ospin has changed very little between species, while the cone ospins all seem to be variants of the rod ospin and of each other. Of course, *these too* follow the evolutionary tree. Cones are overall a clear progression from rods, and have since evolved from each other. The code sequence for red and green cones is almost identical. In some rare cases, women have been found with a fourth type of cone, between red and green - again, another duplicate-then-change genetic artifact. Some animals have many more; birds and turtles usually have 4 or 5. The mantis shrimp has an astounding 16 types rods/cones, invaluable in its bright coral reef habitat (they also can see polarized light, and can see well into the UV spectrum; their total count of distinguisable colors is believed to be about 10 times ours, and they can garner additional information from light via the polarization detection than we can).
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the design of the eye was not created. The rods and cones are aimed *backwards* (unlike the eyes of some invertebrates), making them less able to absorb light. This also means that the nerve fibers have to pass in front of the cells, blocking out more visual ability. The human eye only has one focal point, unlike many birds. Additionally, no eye has evolved to contain multiple lenses in front of each other, acting to enable zoom vision. If humans were to ever design sentient "robot beings", they almost certainly would have this simple and very useful add-on. However, there is no simple linear path to successive lenses in a row. I could go into all sorts of problems with the design of the eye, from the "blind spot" to the loose attachment of the sclera to the "upside down" orientation of vision. Mollusks, who took a different visual evolutionary path, do not have these problems. We've sort of dead-ended ourselves, unfortunately.
It looks even worse when you look at other animals. Take the mole rat, for example. It has eye sockets, and optic nerves, which have been since rerouted for other tasks. There is a complete structure designed to hold an eye, which now contains a defunct glob of eye cells with skin grown over and into it. Why on earth would a designer do this?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MonarchzMan, posted 09-24-2003 6:07 PM MonarchzMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2003 6:07 AM Rei has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 55 (57552)
09-24-2003 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Fred Williams
09-24-2003 2:49 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
I don't think MonarchzMan was looking for "just-so" stories to explain away the problem.
But irreducible complexity is a "just-so" story. Why can't it be refuted in kind. Saying something is impossible in principle can be refuted by showing a path that makes it possible. That simple. People believed it was impossible to fly. All you had to do was bring up Bernouli's principle to show that they were wrong without ever building an airplane.
To make matters worse, evolutionists were forced to admit that the eye must have evolved down 40 seperate, independent paths becuase of the "convergence" problem where similarities could not be explained via common decent!
Convergence is a hallmark of evolution and very supportive. It is only a problem for supporters of Design, i.e. why reinvent the internal combustion engine for every new model of car?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 2:49 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 8:35 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 12 of 55 (57558)
09-24-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
09-24-2003 6:27 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
quote:
Most likely it's A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve, Nilsson DE, Pelger S.,
Oh, you mean the simulation that is a myth?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/vexingeye021302.htm
quote:
[Convergence] doesn't make matters worse, except perhaps for creationists. It indicates that evolution of somehting as useful as an eye is essemtially guaranteed. No problem for the ToE.
Guaranteed? Thanks you JonF for continuing to prove my point that evolution is not falsifiable! You guys are doing the work for me. Thanks, man!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 09-24-2003 6:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 8:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 09-24-2003 10:04 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 13 of 55 (57561)
09-24-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
09-24-2003 8:16 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
quote:
Convergence is a hallmark of evolution and very supportive.
Uh, Loudmouth, does convergence thwart, or aid, in attempts to construct phylogenies?
Again we have an evolutionist who is allowing the theory to explain both homology, and anti-homology (convergence). A theory that explains everything! I thought those kind of theories were not theories...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 09-24-2003 8:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 09-24-2003 8:49 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 8:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-25-2003 4:19 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2003 6:15 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 55 (57570)
09-24-2003 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Fred Williams
09-24-2003 8:35 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
Uh, Loudmouth, does convergence thwart, or aid, in attempts to construct phylogenies?
Show me an example of how convergence has made phylogentic analysis IMPOSSIBLE. I would be happy to discuss it.
Convergence violates nothing in the ToE. Are you trying to say it does? How does convergence violate evolution through random mutation and natural selection? Does the theory that two different species can come to the same solution through different pathways bother you in some way? Explain why?
Here we have a Creationist/IDer who can pose strawmen to try and punch holes in any theory. A logical fallacy that can unexplain everything . . . I thought that kind of logic wasn't logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 8:35 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2003 8:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 15 of 55 (57572)
09-24-2003 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
09-24-2003 8:30 PM


Re: Le Fairytale Grandeure
Hey, Fred! Have you ever actually read the paper by Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger ("A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve"), or are you just spouting out about an inaccurate summary you read? They didn't even spell Pelger's name right!
In the paper, they outright admit that they are not attempting to simulate the inner workings of the cells. They provide the different types of tissues as a "given" - light receptive layers, transparent layers, etc. If this article's complaint is that they didn't go into how the cells work, the author is an idiot, because that was accepted as a given at the beginning of the paper.
They *did* do their calculations on a computer. It wasn't a GA, but the caluclations were done by computer.
The change from eye spot to fish eye took 1829 generations using 1% bends in components of the eyes, and never going to a more poorly adapted version. Do you think that 1% improvements is unreasonable?
There final number (364,000) generations is assuming a very poor rate of a successful mutation sticking (1 in 200 chance).
Despite the suggestion that Berlinski tries to put across, Nilsson and Pelger do *not* attempt to explain how the nervous system that interprets it, nor the individual tissues, develop (and function). They *do* show that there is a completely linear progression in eye shape from an eyespot to an eye. If you disagree, explain why. No hand waving.
If you agree, we can move on to things that their paper did *not* go into, such as the wiring of the brain or the functioning of different tissues.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 09-24-2003 8:30 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024