Which evolved first, the orbit or the eye?

[FearGod]

You ought to realise that the eye is an extremely ancient feature of huge numbers of organisms. The eye we have is a descendent of the eye that other vertebrates such as fish have. My guess is the fish eye and ours evolved from an eye in a pre-fish chordate that did not yet have a skull.

The mollusc eye of course has no "orbit" and nor does the arthropod eye.

Your false antithesis of "design" versus "luck" is extremely ignorant and irritating, by the way. It is impossible to believe that you do not by now know perfectly well that evolution is neither design nor "luck". Look up natural selection. I am not wasting my time explaining it to you, as no educated person has any excuse at all for not knowing what that is and how it works.

Did the hole for the previously existing eye evolved later?

 

[exchemist]

Did the hole for the previously existing eye evolved later?

Do your own research for a change. Why not start with this: Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye—Fossil Evidence

 

[Jumi]

Which was first, the question or the answer? Looking at the answer, the question might be different.

 

[FearGod]

Do your own research for a change. Why not start with this: Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye—Fossil Evidence

We're debating and not asking for searching tips.

 

[sealchan]

The mutations that caused the evolution of the orbit in the skull was first or the mutations
that caused the evolution of the eye was first.

Did the mutation of the orbit and the mutation of the eye occurred at the same time
and hence the eye was fixed in the orbit during long period of time.

Was it a design or was it a luck?

This question is based on a false premise that the two didn't evolve with an established inter-relationship.

At some point way back in evolution, the socket, eye relationship was established such that thereafter the descendants which carry the genes for that relationship would have the benefit of a skull matched to the eye no matter what manner of eye or skull was created in the specific organsim.

You will want to find the greatest common ancestor of skull and also eye bearing organisms to discover how this relationship was trained up and then inherited.

 

[SomeRandom]

We're debating and not asking for searching tips.

Seems like you need some, if you don't mind me saying such a thing?

 

[sealchan]

The orbital lobe evolved first in ocean life, which eventually let to eyes in things like fishes. By the time life moved to land masses, the eye was already evolved. Thus, the eye had already evolved in our ancestors long before human beings existed.

Perhaps the skull, as a bone layer forming simultaneously around the head of the organism allows other peripheral objects to interfere with the continuity of the bone growth such that sockets form where eyes, or any other natural or artificially introduced peripheral organ, intrude upon the topography of the skull as it forms.

The developmental process of skull formation merely needs to be permissive of other objects embedded in its layer...it does not have to know that room needs to be made for an eye.

 

[sealchan]

Exactly, but was the hole in the fish's head first evolved or the eye first evolved?

Eyes and skulls evolved separately but when they met they evolved such that eyes blocked (made a hole in) skull development. The hole is just the evidence that in the developing organism skull forms and grows around eyes.

 

[FearGod]

This question is based on a false premise that the two didn't evolve with an established inter-relationship.

At some point way back in evolution, the socket, eye relationship was established such that thereafter the descendants which carry the genes for that relationship would have the benefit of a skull matched to the eye no matter what manner of eye or skull was created in the specific organsim.

You will want to find the greatest common ancestor of skull and also eye bearing organisms to discover how this relationship was trained up and then inherited.

When did such relationship started?

 

[FearGod]

Seems like you need some, if you don't mind me saying such a thing?

Why to debate then?

 

[leroy]

The mutations that caused the evolution of the orbit in the skull was first or the mutations
that caused the evolution of the eye was first.

Did the mutation of the orbit and the mutation of the eye occurred at the same time
and hence the eye was fixed in the orbit during long period of time.

Was it a design or was it a luck?

Proto eyes “evolved” first in a flat surface, and then the orbit evolved.

 

[sealchan]

When did such relationship started?

Let your fingers do the Googling...I've answered as much as I care to.

 

[David T]

There is no luck nor chance in evolution. Like the brain and the skull they evolved together.

Intelligent Design remain a hookus pookus phony science. God Creates and does not design, because God is not an engineer.

God is a humorist, she created the human brain in her image, and stuck a penis on half of them. Or we could reverse that and well it plays out the same.

 

[David T]

We're debating and not asking for searching tips.

This isnt a debate its a skit.

 

[David T]

When did such relationship started?

 

[shunyadragon]

When did such relationship started?

Do you have any basic knowledge of evolution and early eyes and the beginnings of the evolution skeleton?

Actually the primitive eye and even complex eyes, ie octopus, were first before skeletons. The skull evolved, cartilaginous first than bone, to fit the eye, in some exoskeletons, evolved in fish with the complex eye to fit in the skull, and primarily for the protection and a mount with muscles for the eye. The skeletons of early fish were placoderms with exoskeletons with eye sockets and jaws. Later fish like sharks did not have bone but cartilage, still developed around the eye. The earlier fish with bones were Osteichthyes.

Her is a sample of beginning stuff concerning the skeleton. Read the whole thing! If you digest this we will go on to the eye and the skull.

Evolution of the vertebrate skeleton: morphology, embryology, and development

Abstract

Two major skeletal systems—the endoskeleton and exoskeleton—are recognized in vertebrate evolution. Here, we propose that these two systems are distinguished primarily by their relative positions, not by differences in embryonic histogenesis or cell lineage of origin. Comparative embryologic analyses have shown that both types of skeleton have changed their mode of histogenesis during evolution. Although exoskeletons were thought to arise exclusively from the neural crest, recent experiments in teleosts have shown that exoskeletons in the trunk are mesodermal in origin. The enameloid and dentine-coated postcranial exoskeleton seen in many vertebrates does not appear to represent an ancestral condition, as previously hypothesized, but rather a derived condition, in which the enameloid and dentine tissues became accreted to bones. Recent data from placoderm fossils are compatible with this scenario. In contrast, the skull contains neural crest-derived bones in its rostral part. Recent developmental studies suggest that the boundary between neural crest- and mesoderm-derived bones may not be consistent throughout evolution. Rather, the relative positions of bony elements may be conserved, and homologies of bony elements have been retained, with opportunistic changes in the mechanisms and cell lineages of development.

 

[shunyadragon]

We're debating and not asking for searching tips.

Debate is based on knowledge of the science involved, which you lack.

The socket (hole???) evolved to fit the existing eye, muscles and nerves. The eyes existed far earlier than skeletons,

 

[shmogie]

As with most things along this line, they evolved together. Single genes often control the development of more than one system.

Why ?

 

[FearGod]

Do you have any basic knowledge of evolution and early eyes and the beginnings of the evolution skeleton?

Actually the primitive eye and even complex eyes, ie octopus, were first before skeletons. The skull evolved, cartilaginous first than bone, to fit the eye, in some exoskeletons, evolved in fish with the complex eye to fit in the skull, and primarily for the protection and a mount with muscles for the eye. The skeletons of early fish were placoderms with exoskeletons with eye sockets and jaws. Later fish like sharks did not have bone but cartilage, still developed around the eye. The earlier fish with bones were Osteichthyes.

Her is a sample of beginning stuff concerning the skeleton. Read the whole thing! If you digest this we will go on to the eye and the skull.

Evolution of the vertebrate skeleton: morphology, embryology, and development

Abstract

Two major skeletal systems—the endoskeleton and exoskeleton—are recognized in vertebrate evolution. Here, we propose that these two systems are distinguished primarily by their relative positions, not by differences in embryonic histogenesis or cell lineage of origin. Comparative embryologic analyses have shown that both types of skeleton have changed their mode of histogenesis during evolution. Although exoskeletons were thought to arise exclusively from the neural crest, recent experiments in teleosts have shown that exoskeletons in the trunk are mesodermal in origin. The enameloid and dentine-coated postcranial exoskeleton seen in many vertebrates does not appear to represent an ancestral condition, as previously hypothesized, but rather a derived condition, in which the enameloid and dentine tissues became accreted to bones. Recent data from placoderm fossils are compatible with this scenario. In contrast, the skull contains neural crest-derived bones in its rostral part. Recent developmental studies suggest that the boundary between neural crest- and mesoderm-derived bones may not be consistent throughout evolution. Rather, the relative positions of bony elements may be conserved, and homologies of bony elements have been retained, with opportunistic changes in the mechanisms and cell lineages of development.

I didn't ask how the vertebrate skeleton evolved but how the socket evolved along
with the evolution of the skull, even in octopus and fish, still a socket was evolved
to fit the eye within it, how separated tissues evolved all together and positioned
correctly in place.

 

[FearGod]

Debate is based on knowledge of the science involved, which you lack.

The socket (hole???) evolved to fit the existing eye, muscles and nerves. The eyes existed far earlier than skeletons,

Did you observe the evolution of eye and the surrounding tissues billions of years ago?