Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Eye Evolution: Comments about the Great Debate
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 30 (68068)
11-20-2003 5:17 PM


Maybe I should start taking bets on how Joralex will respond.
Choice 1:
It is your own metaphysical assumptions that keeps you from seeing how nature was created.
Choice 2:
No response. You guys are unfair and will never understand anything about reality.
I don't think we will se a detailed biologically based response, just from past behavior.

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 30 (70795)
12-03-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
11-22-2003 1:08 PM


Joralex seems that he/she is going to just dismiss this example with no real argument. The reference to Point 1 seemed to concern a much more complex visual system than Zhimbo was talking about in his initial example - the topic here is supposed to be: "How can a visual system evolve?" Zhimbo needs to come up with a plausible candidate for a first system. The complexity mentioned in "point 1" is not relevant for this example - it may be relevant if the discussion moves to discuss how this initial first system may evolve into the more complex systems, but is not relevant here.
This may cause a little topic drift, but how would a sunflower's ability to track the sun fit into this. Their ability doesn't seem to rely on a nervous system or a specific organ for sight. The only problem is that this system obviously did not evolve into the eyesight we see in animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2003 1:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 30 (71051)
12-04-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by FliesOnly
12-04-2003 5:47 PM


In the first have of the above quote, Joralex informs us that we're trying to build a functional space shuttle and then gives us all the parts (what a nice guy). Then in the second half of the quote he seems to imply that we cannot possibly assemble an actual space shuttle because of its complexity. Ok, first off, we all know that evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution has no goal and cannot predict future novel contingencies, but hear me out. I'm saying that if you give me all the parts needed to assemble a space shuttle and enough time...I will give you back a functioning space shuttle.
Maybe the bigger question is, could we take the parts for the space shuttle and build a car. If we were allowed to cut and bend the metal (ie deletion and mutation) could we build something that resembles something so unique that no one would think that you made it out of space shuttle parts. I think that is what is missing from the IC inference, mutation and cooption can disguise the ancestory of many genes. So what if flagellar proteins are like no other protein, what matters is that they are trascribed from DNA and translated from RNA into an amino acid chain. In this respect, they are like every other protein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by FliesOnly, posted 12-04-2003 5:47 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 30 (71230)
12-05-2003 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by FliesOnly
12-05-2003 10:02 AM


What process he is talking about? I don't see a process, I see a list of structurally similar transmembrane proteins. If anything, this supports the idea of co-option.
I don't know about your scientific background, but I find that anyone that has studied the cell in any detail tends to feel the same way. There is nothing "special" about the proteins involved in sight, and yes it does seem to indicate co-option. Maybe for people like myself who have worked intimately with the workings of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells they start to lose some of their mystery. Some people scream "look at this complexity" as if it is unknowable and beyond understanding when in fact we already know quite a bit about the complexity found in cells (Tol like receptors in innate immune response probably being the latest and greatest). It is something akin to a child amazed by the inner workings of a clock and then later in life becoming a watchmaker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2003 10:02 AM FliesOnly 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