• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evolution of the eye

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
This is an old ID canard trumpeting the fallacy arguing for the negative when you are ignorant of the actual genetic and fossil evidence for the diversity, and progressive evolution of the eye. You can of course begin with the references I provided.

The specific information is the genetic information showing many of the steps in the evolution of the eye.

Well the oldest fossil evidence for an eye was quite advanced- appearing abruptly in the record like everything else, with no evolutionary history- nothing pre-cambrian I'm afraid, and genetics only go back a geological 'blink of an eye' as I'm sure you know

I've seen lots of brave attempts to try to explain it in different ways. but I'm always interested in the rich diversity of people's personal beliefs on evolution. Tell me what you believe. How do you produce a fully functioning eye by pure 'blind' luck?- if you'll excuse the expression!
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Another old canard. The witness of science is self correcting, and the Piltdown man was accepted for a while because there simply was very little fossil evidence to compare it to.

Exactly, very little evidence to build a solid case on, and yet was declared to be unequivocally genuine-'without question' and used as foundation of human evolution in schools and museums for... a little while? >40 years!

Now take the primeval atom, mocked and rejected as 'religious pseudoscience' 'inherently unscientific' and 'big bang' explicitly over complaints of overt theistic implications- until proven beyond reasonable doubt decades later..

a tiny bit of a double standard?

science self corrects, eventually, scientists not so much!

Of course Newtonian Classical Physics was considered the established belief by academia, and it still is for the macro world and engineering today, and used to design building, jet engines, and much of our technology today, but of course it was limited to the macro world. Knowledge, of course evolves, and the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were needed to describe the micro world.

It don't work so great at the macro end either- dark energy, universal expansion, black holes, pretty hard to deal with under Newtonian physics!

It works for the 'middle' world, the scale at which we operate, as a sort of superficial illusion necessarily supported by deeper integral guiding designs, much like evolution I submit to you!

point being: scales matter. Extrapolating classical physics as an comprehensive explanation for all physics reality was extremely tempting, and Darwinism was an entirely logical, intuitive extension of this Victorian age, simplistic understanding of reality. Science has come a long way since then.

Meaningless.

meaningless



That is how life evolved on earth, but it was not engineered like your Ford.

yet they leave the same evidence in the physical record, interesting




There skepticism is grounded in a religious agenda.

Projectionism? not all of us base our conclusions on ideology- I became skeptical of evolution as a staunch atheist, while trying to prove it in computer models.

Of course Darwinists have no agenda regarding the deeper implications for the nature of reality:rolleyes:
The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg


I'd be very generous to call the ideology factor a wash!

The unsubstantiated assumptions are those who put Genesis as a standard over 150+ years of sound science where 99% of the scientists in the fields associated with evolution consider the science of evolution the best and only scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

99% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they are the experts, right? nobody else's opinion is valid

False, the lag you speak of is simply the evolving advancement of science based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and not ancient mythology.

It's a lovely ideal I agree, meanwhile back in the real world:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it


— Max Planck
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well the oldest fossil evidence for an eye was quite advanced- appearing abruptly in the record like everything else, with no evolutionary history- nothing pre-cambrian I'm afraid, and genetics only go back a geological 'blink of an eye' as I'm sure you know

I've seen lots of brave attempts to try to explain it in different ways. but I'm always interested in the rich diversity of people's personal beliefs on evolution. Tell me what you believe. How do you produce a fully functioning eye by pure 'blind' luck?- if you'll excuse the expression!

The last resort defense of the fallacy the appeal to ignorance without understanding what your talking about because of a religious agenda based on mythology.

The existence of simple primitive eyes eyes and light sensitive cells that are precursor of eyes are present in today's organisms and the associated genetics. It is obvious that these would not be preserved in the fossil record.

From: Molluscs (Mollusca)
The Evolution of the Mollusc Eye
eye-evolution.png

Stages in the evolution of eyes among molluscs. Source: Wikipedia.
a: Flat eye; b: cup eye; c: pinhole eye; d: vesicular eye; e: lens eye.
The example of the molluscs offers a good opportunity to observe the evolution of light sense organs in the animal kingdom. Among the numerous and various groups of molluscs there are primordial and advanced, movable and sessile species.

In the most primitive form light perception happens by single sense cells located somewhere in the body. Singular light sense cells dispersed over the body surface, as on snails and segmented worms, can tell the difference between light and dark, so the animal may benefit from a shadow reflex to protect itself against predators. They are, however, not a sense organ in the common sense of speaking: A sense organ is a complete organ, not just singular cells, specialized in a defined sensory performance. The first light sense organ is a specialized field of light sense cells and pigment cells for lateral isolation. It is called a flat eye. It enables its possessor to differentiate between light and dark, but only basically makes it possible to tell where the light comes from.

Flat eyes today can still be found in primitive groups of invertebrates, such as jellyfish (Coelenterata). It may also be assumed that the molluscs' ancestors, primitive, worm-like ground-living creatures, also possessed such flat eyes.

A primitive flat eye may be of valuable use to an animal either sessile or moving passively. The directed movement of more highly developed molluscs required the formation of more advanced light sense organs. In the consequence the light-sensitive epithelium of the flat eye caved in to form a pit. So the light sense cells on facing sides of the eye can tell apart light and shade. That makes it possible to determine where the light comes from. Pit shaped eyes can be found in sessile and slow moving invertebrates.

In adaptation to a directed movement there was not only an evolution of eyes, but also a change in body form: Sense organs became concentrated at the end of the body facing towards the the main direction of movement: The head evolved as the centre of sensory activity (cephalization).

While a pit eye may be able to differentiate between light and shade, it is not capable of producing pictures. Especially for predatory molluscs, having to observe and to follow their prey, an improvement of the eye's picture projection capability was necessary: The eye opening narrowed, and in consequence the picture projected on the retina became more focused. So the pigmented cup eye came into existence. Today, in its primitive state, this type of eye can be found among certain bivalves and turbellarian worms.

chiton_front.jpg

A chiton. Source: Invertébrés Herbivores.
Pigmented cup eyes can also be found among primitive, mainly sessile, gastropods, such as limpets (Patellidae).

Comparable to the pigmented cup eyes of primitive gastropods are the cuticular eyes of chitons (Polyplacophora). Those, as their name states, are situated in the dorsal shell plates of the chiton and enable the animal to tell apart light and shadow on its dorsal side.

In the further course of evolution, the eye opening reduced in size and as a result the eye achieved abilities comparable to a so-called pinhole camera: A focused, but low-light picture can be projected to the retina. Among the molluscs, pinhole eyes can be found among ormers (Haliotidae) and primitive cephalopods, such as Nautilus. Nautilus is a living fossil, a remnant from the Mesozoic. It is also assumed, that fossil cephalopods, such as the giant endocerate Cameraceras from the Ordovician had similar eyes.

dr.gif
See: Nigel Marven's "Walking with dinosaurs: Sea Monsters"

In the pit eye and the pinhole eye, the inner space of the eye is filled by a secretion breaking the light rays and, at least basically, enhancing brightness and focus of the picture. This inner eye space could evolve noticeably, when the eye opening of the pinhole eye closed completely and was covered by a translucent epithelium. Among more highly developed snails, especially carnivorous sea gastropods, this liquid-filled bubble inside the eye became a primitive lens, making possible the perception of a relatively focused picture with a usable brightness (in contrary to the pinhole eye, in which focus always works at the expense of brightness)."
 
Last edited:

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
The last resort defense of the fallacy the appeal to ignorance without understanding what your talking about because of a religious agenda based on mythology.

The existence of simple primitive eyes eyes and light sensitive cells that are precursor of eyes are present in today's organisms and the associated genetics. It is obvious that these would not be preserved in the fossil record.

From: Molluscs (Mollusca)
The Evolution of the Mollusc Eye
eye-evolution.png

Stages in the evolution of eyes among molluscs. Source: Wikipedia.
a: Flat eye; b: cup eye; c: pinhole eye; d: vesicular eye; e: lens eye.
The example of the molluscs offers a good opportunity to observe the evolution of light sense organs in the animal kingdom. Among the numerous and various groups of molluscs there are primordial and advanced, movable and sessile species.

In the most primitive form light perception happens by single sense cells located somewhere in the body. Singular light sense cells dispersed over the body surface, as on snails and segmented worms, can tell the difference between light and dark, so the animal may benefit from a shadow reflex to protect itself against predators. They are, however, not a sense organ in the common sense of speaking: A sense organ is a complete organ, not just singular cells, specialized in a defined sensory performance. The first light sense organ is a specialized field of light sense cells and pigment cells for lateral isolation. It is called a flat eye. It enables its possessor to differentiate between light and dark, but only basically makes it possible to tell where the light comes from.

Flat eyes today can still be found in primitive groups of invertebrates, such as jellyfish (Coelenterata). It may also be assumed that the molluscs' ancestors, primitive, worm-like ground-living creatures, also possessed such flat eyes.

A primitive flat eye may be of valuable use to an animal either sessile or moving passively. The directed movement of more highly developed molluscs required the formation of more advanced light sense organs. In the consequence the light-sensitive epithelium of the flat eye caved in to form a pit. So the light sense cells on facing sides of the eye can tell apart light and shade. That makes it possible to determine where the light comes from. Pit shaped eyes can be found in sessile and slow moving invertebrates.

In adaptation to a directed movement there was not only an evolution of eyes, but also a change in body form: Sense organs became concentrated at the end of the body facing towards the the main direction of movement: The head evolved as the centre of sensory activity (cephalization).

While a pit eye may be able to differentiate between light and shade, it is not capable of producing pictures. Especially for predatory molluscs, having to observe and to follow their prey, an improvement of the eye's picture projection capability was necessary: The eye opening narrowed, and in consequence the picture projected on the retina became more focused. So the pigmented cup eye came into existence. Today, in its primitive state, this type of eye can be found among certain bivalves and turbellarian worms.

chiton_front.jpg

A chiton. Source: Invertébrés Herbivores.
Pigmented cup eyes can also be found among primitive, mainly sessile, gastropods, such as limpets (Patellidae).

Comparable to the pigmented cup eyes of primitive gastropods are the cuticular eyes of chitons (Polyplacophora). Those, as their name states, are situated in the dorsal shell plates of the chiton and enable the animal to tell apart light and shadow on its dorsal side.

In the further course of evolution, the eye opening reduced in size and as a result the eye achieved abilities comparable to a so-called pinhole camera: A focused, but low-light picture can be projected to the retina. Among the molluscs, pinhole eyes can be found among ormers (Haliotidae) and primitive cephalopods, such as Nautilus. Nautilus is a living fossil, a remnant from the Mesozoic. It is also assumed, that fossil cephalopods, such as the giant endocerate Cameraceras from the Ordovician had similar eyes.

dr.gif
See: Nigel Marven's "Walking with dinosaurs: Sea Monsters"

In the pit eye and the pinhole eye, the inner space of the eye is filled by a secretion breaking the light rays and, at least basically, enhancing brightness and focus of the picture. This inner eye space could evolve noticeably, when the eye opening of the pinhole eye closed completely and was covered by a translucent epithelium. Among more highly developed snails, especially carnivorous sea gastropods, this liquid-filled bubble inside the eye became a primitive lens, making possible the perception of a relatively focused picture with a usable brightness (in contrary to the pinhole eye, in which focus always works at the expense of brightness)."

Sounds like quite a tapdance to me.

Answer this. Since you have all the DNA evidence you could ask for, why can't you prove the TOE? Answer: You can't because it is just poppycock.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's not what I said. Do you have reading comprehension problems or are you just reading it the way you choose to? Obviously the latter.

No problem nothing you have said is reliable . . .

No, I have very good reading comprehension, and I fully realize your covering of your eyes is self-inflicted ignorance of science based on a Theist agenda of ancient mythology.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sounds like quite a tapdance to me.

Answer this. Since you have all the DNA evidence you could ask for, why can't you prove the TOE? Answer: You can't because it is just poppycock.

Your self-inflicted ignorance of science based on a
a belief in ancient mythology is the issue not science.

Science does not prove anything. You are ignoring the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the science of evolution. You still do not realize that 99%+ of all scientists in related fields including genetics support the science of evolution.

You have failed to cite any peer reviewed genetic research that support your blind assertions. I have cited the peer reviewed science. Instead of 'side show canards' please cite some science to support your view.

Still waiting. . .
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Projectionism? not all of us base our conclusions on ideology- I became skeptical of evolution as a staunch atheist, while trying to prove it in computer models.

Of course Darwinists have no agenda regarding the deeper implications for the nature of reality:rolleyes:
The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg


I'd be very generous to call the ideology factor a wash!

A philosophical work justifying atheism is not science nor does it represent science.

99% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they are the experts, right? nobody else's opinion is valid

No they are not experts (maybe exspurts - failed drips), nor is is this remotely related to the subject nor science.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Your self-inflicted ignorance of science based on a
a belief in ancient mythology is the issue not science.

Science does not prove anything. You are ignoring the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the science of evolution. You still do not realize that 99%+ of all scientists in related fields including genetics support the science of evolution.

You have failed to cite any peer reviewed genetic research that support your blind assertions. I have cited the peer reviewed science. Instead of 'side show canards' please cite some science to support your view.

Still waiting. . .

Deflection. You fans of the TOE are experts at deflection.

You have everything you need to prove the TOE yet you cannot. That tells me all I need to know right there.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
No problem nothing you have said is reliable . . .

No, I have very good reading comprehension, and I fully realize your covering of your eyes is self-inflicted ignorance of science based on a Theist agenda of ancient mythology.

"I fully realize your covering of your eyes is self-inflicted ignorance of science based on a Theist agenda of ancient mythology."

Well, well, well, what do you know? Our humble evolutionist is a fan of the fallacy of Argument from Assumption. That's no surprise since the entire TOE is just that: the fallacy of Argument from Assumption.

If it isn't prove it isn't. You cannot do it.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
and talking of eyes..... we wandered off point as usual!

How do you solve the irreducible complexity problem here-

A whole eye is too great a leap for a 'blind' luck so to speak- random mutation, while half an eye offers no advantage.

It's an old question obviously, but more problematic than ever with our knowledge of DNA, and just how much specific design information is required for an eye
You really need some new material. These arguments you keep repeating are outdated.

Eye Evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. - PubMed - NCBI
Eye evolution and its functional basis
Eye evolution at high resolution: The neuron as a unit of homology - ScienceDirect
Works Cited
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/96/3/171/2187545
Evolution of eye development in the darkness of caves: adaptation, drift, or both? | EvoDevo | Full Text
Molluscs (Mollusca)
Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The last resort defense of the fallacy the appeal to ignorance without understanding what your talking about because of a religious agenda based on mythology.

The existence of simple primitive eyes eyes and light sensitive cells that are precursor of eyes are present in today's organisms and the associated genetics. It is obvious that these would not be preserved in the fossil record.

From: Molluscs (Mollusca)
The Evolution of the Mollusc Eye
eye-evolution.png

Stages in the evolution of eyes among molluscs. Source: Wikipedia.
a: Flat eye; b: cup eye; c: pinhole eye; d: vesicular eye; e: lens eye.
The example of the molluscs offers a good opportunity to observe the evolution of light sense organs in the animal kingdom. Among the numerous and various groups of molluscs there are primordial and advanced, movable and sessile species.

In the most primitive form light perception happens by single sense cells located somewhere in the body. Singular light sense cells dispersed over the body surface, as on snails and segmented worms, can tell the difference between light and dark, so the animal may benefit from a shadow reflex to protect itself against predators. They are, however, not a sense organ in the common sense of speaking: A sense organ is a complete organ, not just singular cells, specialized in a defined sensory performance. The first light sense organ is a specialized field of light sense cells and pigment cells for lateral isolation. It is called a flat eye. It enables its possessor to differentiate between light and dark, but only basically makes it possible to tell where the light comes from.

Flat eyes today can still be found in primitive groups of invertebrates, such as jellyfish (Coelenterata). It may also be assumed that the molluscs' ancestors, primitive, worm-like ground-living creatures, also possessed such flat eyes.

A primitive flat eye may be of valuable use to an animal either sessile or moving passively. The directed movement of more highly developed molluscs required the formation of more advanced light sense organs. In the consequence the light-sensitive epithelium of the flat eye caved in to form a pit. So the light sense cells on facing sides of the eye can tell apart light and shade. That makes it possible to determine where the light comes from. Pit shaped eyes can be found in sessile and slow moving invertebrates.

In adaptation to a directed movement there was not only an evolution of eyes, but also a change in body form: Sense organs became concentrated at the end of the body facing towards the the main direction of movement: The head evolved as the centre of sensory activity (cephalization).

While a pit eye may be able to differentiate between light and shade, it is not capable of producing pictures. Especially for predatory molluscs, having to observe and to follow their prey, an improvement of the eye's picture projection capability was necessary: The eye opening narrowed, and in consequence the picture projected on the retina became more focused. So the pigmented cup eye came into existence. Today, in its primitive state, this type of eye can be found among certain bivalves and turbellarian worms.

chiton_front.jpg

A chiton. Source: Invertébrés Herbivores.
Pigmented cup eyes can also be found among primitive, mainly sessile, gastropods, such as limpets (Patellidae).

Comparable to the pigmented cup eyes of primitive gastropods are the cuticular eyes of chitons (Polyplacophora). Those, as their name states, are situated in the dorsal shell plates of the chiton and enable the animal to tell apart light and shadow on its dorsal side.

In the further course of evolution, the eye opening reduced in size and as a result the eye achieved abilities comparable to a so-called pinhole camera: A focused, but low-light picture can be projected to the retina. Among the molluscs, pinhole eyes can be found among ormers (Haliotidae) and primitive cephalopods, such as Nautilus. Nautilus is a living fossil, a remnant from the Mesozoic. It is also assumed, that fossil cephalopods, such as the giant endocerate Cameraceras from the Ordovician had similar eyes.

dr.gif
See: Nigel Marven's "Walking with dinosaurs: Sea Monsters"

In the pit eye and the pinhole eye, the inner space of the eye is filled by a secretion breaking the light rays and, at least basically, enhancing brightness and focus of the picture. This inner eye space could evolve noticeably, when the eye opening of the pinhole eye closed completely and was covered by a translucent epithelium. Among more highly developed snails, especially carnivorous sea gastropods, this liquid-filled bubble inside the eye became a primitive lens, making possible the perception of a relatively focused picture with a usable brightness (in contrary to the pinhole eye, in which focus always works at the expense of brightness)."

I'll ignore all the ad hominem and get to the substance if you don't mind, I understand you are passionate about your beliefs, but I assume you and everyone else here is perfectly honest, intelligent, and capable of critical thought, at the very least that makes for a more interesting discussion

So the problem remains

the simplest functional eye (fig. a) is not so simple

It's not just a clump of 'light sensitive cells', it's a light sensitive cell structure, which produces an electrical signal, transfers this via an optic nerve fiber of some kind, where the information is directed to where it can be processed and utilized in a way that produced a significantly advantageous reaction- in even it's very simplest form- this involves reversing the rotation of the flagellar motor to reverse direction of movement

So this is not half an eye, it's a fully functional eye, even if relatively primitive to ours, fully integrated into the organism, nerve connections and all. And to solve the irreducible complexity problem- all this must happen in one go, all the literal digital DNA code required to implement this system, all spontaneously blundered into existence by lucky mistake, hundreds of millions of years ago,

Not technically impossible by chance of course, nor is a gambler playing 5 royal flushes in a row, it's just that chance is not the least improbable explanation.

I'm sure you know that we can't possibly observe, measure, test or reproduce this in any way.. rather it is concluded that it must have happened because that's what the 19th century theory demands, not the 21st century evidence

This is the problem with declaring any theory 'immutable fact'- the theory then dictates the evidence, rather than the other way around

If this is what passes for 'undeniable scientific fact', don't you think we could at least use a another term, to distinguish those things that are actually supported by the empirical evidence?, math, observation, testing... just to avoid gross confusion between the two?
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll ignore all the ad hominem and get to the substance if you don't mind, I understand you are passionate about your beliefs, but I assume you and everyone else here is perfectly honest, intelligent, and capable of critical thought, at the very least that makes for a more interesting discussion

So the problem remains

the simplest functional eye (fig. a) is not so simple

It's not just a clump of 'light sensitive cells', it's a light sensitive cell structure, which produces an electrical signal, transfers this via an optic nerve fiber of some kind, where the information is directed to where it can be processed and utilized in a way that produced a significantly advantageous reaction- in even it's very simplest form- this involves reversing the rotation of the flagellar motor to reverse direction of movement

So this is not half an eye, it's a fully functional eye, even if relatively primitive to ours, fully integrated into the organism, nerve connections and all. And to solve the irreducible complexity problem- all this must happen in one go, all the literal digital DNA code required to implement this system, all spontaneously blundered into existence by lucky mistake, hundreds of millions of years ago,

Not technically impossible by chance of course, nor is a gambler playing 5 royal flushes in a row, it's just that chance is not the least improbable explanation.

I'm sure you know that we can't possibly observe, measure, test or reproduce this in any way.. rather it is concluded that it must have happened because that's what the 19th century theory demands, not the 21st century evidence

This is the problem with declaring any theory 'immutable fact'- the theory then dictates the evidence, rather than the other way around

If this is what passes for 'undeniable scientific fact', don't you think we could at least use a another term, to distinguish those things that are actually supported by the empirical evidence?, math, observation, testing... just to avoid gross confusion?
How light sensitivity itself evolved.
Animal vision evolved 700 million years ago


But opsins haven't always been the sensitive light detectors that they are today. There is one critter, obscure and small, that carries opsins that are blind to light. These opsins aren't broken, like they are in some cave dwelling species. They never worked to begin with. They are the relics of a distant past, a time in which our ancestors still dwelt in darkness.

The long and more more precise answer involves an evolutionary reconstruction of opsin's earliest history, such as the one that was published by Roberto Feuda and others in PNAS three weeks ago. Feuda and his colleagues gathered opsin sequences from all corners of the animal kingdom, hairy, scaly and squishy, and calculated how related these genes were to each other.
Now, Feuda and his colleagues push back the origin of this opsin cluster farther still. The first animal to carry three opsins was not the bilaterian ancestor, but the last common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria (jellyfish, anemones, corals and their kin). Feuda found all cnidarian opsins belong to one of three different groups, each of which correspond to the three basic opsin types in Bilateria.

Apparently, opsins only evolved after sponges had diverged from other animals, but beforethe split between Bilateria and Cnidaria. Fortunately for Feuda, there exists one animal lineage in this sweet spot between sponges on one side and cnidarians/bilaterians on the other. Meet the placozoans. Small, simple and flat, placozoans resemble shapeshifting pancakes more than anything else. They drift along the sea floor, searching for detritus to scavenge. Sure enough, the placozoan genome harbours two opsins. But here's the catch: these opsins cannot detect light. Remember retinal, the molecule that changes shape when it is struck by light? The placozoan opsins cannot bind retinal, because they lack the amino acid to which retinal binds (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins). Without 'lysine-296', it is unlikely that the placozoan opsins can detect light.

Google Image Result for https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/files/2012/11/opsin.jpg


One is the birth of opsin itself, the other is the mutation that turned opsin into a light sensing protein. The opsin lineage itself arose between 755 and 711 million years ago, from the duplication of a single GPCR. The last common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria lived between 711 and 700 million years ago.

"Our results entail a simple scenario of opsin evolution. The first opsin originated from the duplication of the common ancestor of the melatonin and opsin genes in a eumetazoan (Placozoa plus Neuralia) ancestor, and an inference of its amino acid sequence suggests that this protein might not have been light-sensitive. Two more gene duplications in the ancestral neuralian lineage resulted in the origin of the R, C, and Go/RGR opsins. Accordingly, the first animal with at least a C, an R, and a Go/RGR opsin was a neuralian progenitor."

PNAS | Mobile
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'll ignore all the ad hominem and get to the substance if you don't mind, I understand you are passionate about your beliefs, but I assume you and everyone else here is perfectly honest, intelligent, and capable of critical thought, at the very least that makes for a more interesting discussion

So the problem remains

the simplest functional eye (fig. a) is not so simple

Figure a is a stage in the development of eye. This reference is science not your lack of knowledge and rejection of science.

I gave a reference concerning the evolution of the simple functioning eye based on the evidence and you choose to ignore it.


Not technically impossible by chance of course, nor is a gambler playing 5 royal flushes in a row, it's just that chance is not the least improbable explanation.

Bad, bad science, chance is not a determining factor in the nature of our existence nor Natural Law.

I'm sure you know that we can't possibly observe, measure, test or reproduce this in any way.. rather it is concluded that it must have happened because that's what the 19th century theory demands, not the 21st century evidence

This is the problem with declaring any theory 'immutable fact'- the theory then dictates the evidence, rather than the other way around

If this is what passes for 'undeniable scientific fact', don't you think we could at least use a another term, to distinguish those things that are actually supported by the empirical evidence?, math, observation, testing... just to avoid gross confusion between the two?

Science nor I use wording like 'immutable fact' nor 'undeniable scientific fact' in research literature. It is editorial comments and not the criteria of scientific methods.

It most definitely 21st century evidence that supports the science of evolution.

You still do not realize that 99%+ of all scientists in related fields including genetics support the science of evolution. What are your qualifications to make these absurd outrageous ignorant objections to the science of evolution?

I still need peer reviewed scientific references and research by recognized scientists in genetics, paleoboiology and related biology fields.

Still waiting . . .
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
see above reply

Your response is not coherent.

What are your qualifications to make these absurd outrageous ignorant objections to the science of evolution?

I still need peer reviewed scientific references and research by recognized scientists in genetics, paleoboiology and related biology fields.

Still waiting . . .
 
Top