Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

Whether you believe in evolution or not, evolutionary understanding has not advanced the cause of correcting defective vision.The new advances such as laser surgery for correcting detached retinas and for correcting vision are all human designed advancements negating any future evolutionary changes. Humans have therefore reached a point where we can control our own evolutionary destiny. Therefore even if no intelligent design was occuring before it certainly is now through human intervention.If human beings are a force that can affectively defeat natural selection then I can only imagine that other such influences also exist.
Evolution has in essence evolved its way out of existence.

That's because defective vision doesn't prevent people from reproducing. Evolution only needs you to be "good enough". No, even with surgical corrections, the genes for those bad eyes will still get passed on. Future evolution changes are NOT negated. You'd have to modify your genome for that. Not quite. There'd still be sexual selection. It isn't "out of existence", its just different selective pressures. Too, you never know when there's going to be an environmental change that could throw a total curveball that causes the more familiar selective pressures to once again take over.But this is all besides the topic:Its obvious that sense organs like the eye can, indeed, evolve. Dontcha think?

No, not really. The effects of laser surgery and the reattachment of retinas are not heritable. Well, think about this. It may be that we are indeed "defeating natural selection" in that some people who would otherwise have died of poor eyesight are surviving instead. But that would cause the accumulation of inferior genes, which is something we wouldn't want. Our influence on our "evolutionary destiny" by "defeating natural selection" is the exact opposite of what we'd want for our species, so by "defeating natural selection" we are not so much "controlling our evolutionary destiny" as fucking it up.To use an analogy, you might as well say that by causing global warming (if we are, let's not get into that) we are "controlling our climatic destiny".The results therefore are not, as you state, that ... Intelligence is at work, certainly. But we are not designing our gene pool thereby, since the effect we are having on it is the exact opposite of what we'd choose if we could.

I'm sorry but that is not only a false statement and an irrelevant statement, also just plain silly.Lasik surgery has NOTHING to do with whether or not humans are evolving.From an evolutionary point of view, vision was only relevant if the vision would have been so bad that it would have kept the human from living long enough to reproduce.Try thinking of some other example that is not quite as sophomoric.Second, your example would not stop evolution, it would simply allow the increased likelihood of genetic defects that affect eyesight to get passed on, assuming some genetic defect that is so bad that it would have kept the human from knocking up some other human or from getting knocked up, and right off hand I cannot think of a vision defect so bad that it would keep a girl from getting knocked up.Is that example really the best one you can come up with?

Actually, vision defects would help some of them!

Some might agree with you that we do not want people with bad eyesight to pass on their genes. Eugenicists I think would be the term. The price of glasses and the cost of lasik eye surgery is further evidence that you are indeed right that we don't want these underlings to procreate.But some evidence points in the other direction. Eyesight appears to be getting worse in the modern generation and we are indeed encouraging those who can afford the costs to go ahead and litter our schools with four eyed runts who can further dirty our shrinking gene pool. As you say this is not design as such but it is intervention.

But alas, you provide no evidence. You claim there is some evidence, would you care to share it with us so we can decide whether it is meaningful evidence or not.CS and AE would say there is no need for you to provide evidence, but you say there is evidence so I would like to see it.ABE
I decided to put"Wait for it" at the end of the postBut I see CS gave me a downgrade before I could come back and edit. Nice to see him living up to his potential.Edited by Theodoric, : CS lives up to his potential

The eugencisists would be wrong. If evolution has taught us anything it is that we should try and preserve as much variation within a species as possible.

Not sure why I am bothering to provide this evidence. If you agree with the evidence then what does that mean? And if you don't so what? Dietary Causes of Myopia (Short Sightedness) Information

Eyesight is a good example of the power of natural selection. Prior to the development of vision correcting technology, those with poor eyesight were subject to selection pressures for good vision, such as are associated with hunting or detecting threats. With the invention of eyeglasses these types of selection pressures were removed, and genes for poor vision were passed on indiscriminately. As time went by the average quality of human vision has diminished. Indeed, Darwin noted on his voyage through Patagonia that the natives appeared to have significantly better visual acuity than the Europeans from the ship.Without natural selection to remove or reduce in numbers the vision challenged members of a population, visual acuity in a population should decline.Modern technology and medicine are removing many of the selection pressures that our distant ancestors were subject to. For instance, being a fast runner used to provide a survival advantage, but no more. Flat feet were a disadvantage, but no more. Sheer athleticism used to provide an advantage, but no more. Good aim with rocks or spears or bows used to provide an advantage, but no more.But new selection pressures have replaced the old. Now we need to remember where we left our eyeglasses. The dyslexia that is such a disadvantage to learning today probably had little or no impact before writing was invented.--Percy

Eating carbs causes myopia? Really?Have you considered the possibility that Barry Groves is a quack?--Percy

You misunderstand me.I do not wish that people with bad eyesight should not pass on their genes. For one thing, I have bad eyesight, and for another thing I am opposed to any compulsory program of eugenics.But you and I would like, if possible, for subsequent generations to have better eyesight than mine. And the fact is that providing me with glasses and not sterilizing me will work contrary to that goal. I don't say that this is a bad thing, because I like having glasses and I like having testicles. But it is still true that such policies will thwart natural selection by producing future generations with poorer eyesight.We can't have it both ways. The way we are having it will in fact tend to reduce the visual acuity of future generations, and as such is not what we would want if only we could choose how good their eyesight would be just by clicking our fingers and saying a magic word rather than by a system of compulsory eugenics.

Can I take it that you would be happy with a voluntary program of eugenics then? Can I further assume that you will not be exercising your own volition for this voluntary eugenics program that you espouse? This is in direct opposition to your previous offering that if evolution has taught us one thing it is that biodiversity is advantageous and should be maintained.

How would one oppose a voluntary program of eugenics? If I personally decided that it would be better for future generations that I shouldn't breed, would you force me to have sex without contraception? Would you do the same if I thought my genes were fine and dandy but I just didn't want the expense of having kids? How would you tell the difference? Would I be hauled in front of an inquisitor and strapped to a lie-detector? Fortunately, as your antieugenic inquisition does not exist, I am under no obligation to explain to you or anyone else how many children I want and why. That was in fact posted by someone else, namely Taq in message #98.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is this only true if the population is not growing? If the pop. is growing will the percentage of those affected be static?