[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution of the 'Primitive' Eyespot

[Asyncritus]

Those who believe that the human eye (for example) could have evolved at all, happily and facilely trot out the idea that it all started with a primitive eye-spot.

Just to set the record straight, and the facts before you, I cite from an article here. I have split it up into smaller chunks for easier reading.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#discussion
by
Sean D Pitman M.D.

[...]

"Also, I have not seen documented evidence for the evolution of one type of eye into a different type of eye in any creature. As far as I can tell, no such evolution has ever been directly observed. Of course the argument is that such evolution takes thousands or even millions of years to occur. Maybe so, but without the ability for direct observation and testing, such assumptions, however reasonable, must maintain a higher degree of faith.

A Closer Look​

​

The necessary faith in such a scenario increases even more when one considers the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems.

These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease. In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur.

For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons.

In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin.

The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II. Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducin forcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP.

The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase. When this happens, phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs.

This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell. This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel. This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell.

This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell's membrane.

This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain.

The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision.

Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain.

If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, vision will not occur.2"

The complexity of this process beggars belief. Any given one of the proteins mentioned has to be produced - and protein synthesis has not been achieved by the biochemists with all their wonderful technology.


So how did a lowly eye-spotted animal figure out such chemical wizardry?


Short answer, it didn't.

Evolution, however, can manage anything - in the minds of its supporters, that is: God bless 'em all.
​

 

[Barbarian]

The Evolution of the 'Primitive' Eyespot

Those who believe that the human eye (for example) could have evolved at all, happily and facilely trot out the idea that it all started with a primitive eye-spot.

So the evidence indicates.

Just to set the record straight, and the facts before you, I cite from an article here. I have split it up into smaller chunks for easier reading.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#discussion
by
Sean D Pitman M.D.

Sounds like fun. Let's get started.

"Also, I have not seen documented evidence for the evolution of one type of eye into a different type of eye in any creature. As far as I can tell, no such evolution has ever been directly observed. Of course the argument is that such evolution takes thousands or even millions of years to occur. Maybe so, but without the ability for direct observation and testing, such assumptions, however reasonable, must maintain a higher degree of faith.

Hmm... let's take a look at that reasoning...

"Also I have not seen documented evidence for the growth of a giant redwood from a seed. As far as I can tell no such growth has ever been directly observed. Of course, the argument is that such growth takes hundreds of years to occur. Maybe so, but without the ability for direct evidence and testing, such assumptions, however reasonable, must maintain a higher degree of faith."

And that's his No.1 argument. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this doc.

The necessary faith in such a scenario increases even more when one considers the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems.

Let's test that. One very hot summer day, about noon, take off your shirt, and let someone paint a dark black spot of India ink on your shoulder. Then walk into the direct sun and see if you can detect a difference.

So the simplest possible light sensitive spot would have one chemical with the complex formula of...

C. Carbon black. Strike two, doc.

For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons.

In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin.

Or they could just use carbon. Or a pre-existing molecule like melanin.

The complexity of this process beggars belief.

Let's see... a bit of carbon isolated into a spot. Sunlight. Pigment absorbs the energy, pre-existing nerves pick up the temp difference. Staggering complexity, man. Staggering.

Any given one of the proteins mentioned has to be produced - and protein synthesis has not been achieved by the biochemists with all their wonderful technology.

November 21, 2003
Researchers Design and Build First Artificial Protein
http://www.hhmi.org/news/baker3.html

Strike three. Just short of a decade old. Your doc is a bit behind in his reading, um? His poor patients.

So how did a lowly eye-spotted animal figure out such chemical wizardry?

Short answer, it didn't have to. Surprise, doc.

Async, let me let you in on a secret. Those websites you've been cutting and pasting from are not for debating scientists. They are for reinforcing the zeal of uneducated creationists, who don't know all the things I've been showing you. Using them on people who know what they are talking about is guaranteed to embarrass you. You need to be copying from a better class of creationist.

 

[Asyncritus]

Dawkins' objections to the 'inverted retinal structure' of the human eye are cited in the above-quoted article.

Here they are:

In his 1986 book, "The Blind Watchmaker," the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins poses this design flaw argument for the human eye: ​

​

"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don't know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago." 3



Dawkins' objection has been parrotted by many evolutionists since then - and they are now being called upon to choke on their words.


As it turns out, the supposed problems Dawkins finds with the inverted retina become actual advantages in light of recent research published by Kristian Franze et. al., in the May 2007 issue of PNAS (see illustration above; Link). As it turns out, "Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina." 21 Consider the observations and conclusions of the authors in the following abstract of their paper.


Here is a quote from a 2007 paper on the subject, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Kristian Franze et al:​

​

Although biological cells are mostly transparent, they are phase objects that differ in shape and refractive index. Any image that is projected through layers of randomly oriented cells will normally be distorted by refraction, reflection, and scattering. Counterintuitively, the retina of the vertebrate eye is inverted with respect to its optical function and light must pass through several tissue layers before reaching the light-detecting photoreceptor cells. Here we report on the specific optical properties of glial cells present in the retina, which might contribute to optimize this apparently unfavorable situation. We investigated intact retinal tissue and individual Muller cells, which are radial glial cells spanning the entire retinal thickness. Muller cells have an extended funnel shape, a higher refractive index than their surrounding tissue, and are oriented along the direction of light propagation. Transmission and reflection confocal microscopy of retinal tissue in vitro and in vivo showed that these cells provide a low-scattering passage for light from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells. Using a modified dual-beam laser trap we could also demonstrate that individual Muller cells act as optical fibers. Furthermore, their parallel array in the retina is reminiscent of fiberoptic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. Thus, Muller cells seem to mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss. This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system and ascribes a new function to glial cells.21​

​

And Dawkins would have us believe that no "intelligent" designer would have done it that way? Really? "

​

 

[Asyncritus]

So the evidence indicates.



http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#discussion
by
Sean D Pitman M.D.

Sounds like fun. Let's get started.

Hmm... let's take a look at that reasoning...

"Also I have not seen documented evidence for the growth of a giant redwood from a seed. As far as I can tell no such growth has ever been directly observed. Of course, the argument is that such growth takes hundreds of years to occur. Maybe so, but without the ability for direct evidence and testing, such assumptions, however reasonable, must maintain a higher degree of faith."

And that's his No.1 argument. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this doc.

Not the most logical person in the philosophy department, are you?

Redwoods have been grown from seeds, and that has been directly observed and recorded. You should know that - and that finishes your distorted caricature.

Just BTW, have you seen any documented observations of the evolution of one type of eye into another? Or do you just keep taking the pills?

Let's test that. One very hot summer day, about noon, take off your shirt, and let someone paint a dark black spot of India ink on your shoulder. Then walk into the direct sun and see if you can detect a difference.

What are you talking about?

You may be able to 'detect' a difference - but what is the physiology and biochemistry of the detection process? How many intermediate steps are involved before the message gets to your brain? How many unevolvable protein systems are involved? Tut tut, Barbarian. Try again.

So the simplest possible light sensitive spot would have one chemical with the complex formula of...

C. Carbon black. Strike two, doc.

So you see a spot of carbon black being a light receptor, connected to the 'brain' of the creature, able to provoke responses, do you? A trifle wishful, I would have said.

Or they could just use carbon. Or a pre-existing molecule like melanin.

Could they just use carbon? Wishful again, are we? Stick a lump of coal in somebody's eye socket and let's see how much light they detect. They've tried it with glass eyes - but they don't work too well, you know.

And melanin. Simple? Who's been kidding you? Try this link:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ch...e=univ&ei=vZyLTpLEGsuw8QO84435BA&ved=0CEEQsAQ

Let's see... a bit of carbon isolated into a spot. Sunlight. Pigment absorbs the energy, pre-existing nerves pick up the temp difference. Staggering complexity, man. Staggering.

As I said, glass eyes don't work too good. They lack something, don't they? What?

November 21, 2003
Researchers Design and Build First Artificial Protein
http://www.hhmi.org/news/baker3.html

Strike three. Just short of a decade old. Your doc is a bit behind in his reading, um? His poor patients.

Did you read the following in your article? Doesn't it make you want to abandon your knee-jerk reflex answers? I'll highlight the bits that the poor creature with the eyespot didn't have, when it designed and constructed its eyespot biochemistry. I'll also leave out the journalistic claptrap.

Using sophisticated computer algorithms running on standard desktop computers, researchers have designed and constructed a novel functional protein that is not found in nature.

How many computers did that Paramecium have, Barbarian? How many sophisticated algorithms? How much designing and constructing did it do, before it could sense light?

Short answer, it didn't have to. Surprise, doc.

No it didn't. It's Designer did the job for it.

Async, let me let you in on a secret. Those websites you've been cutting and pasting from are not for debating scientists. They are for reinforcing the zeal of uneducated creationists, who don't know all the things I've been showing you. Using them on people who know what they are talking about is guaranteed to embarrass you. You need to be copying from a better class of creationist.

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest Barbarian. Your answers are frivolous and inconsequential caricatures of the truth, which bear no relationship to the reasoned and careful accounting for the details you need to produce.

You are being presented with a magnificent piece of biochemical wizardry, and in order to avoid the force of the facts, are compelled to produce these shoddy caricatures.

I pointed out that in the photo-detection sequence there are many proteins involved. You quote some article which reports the failure of the researchers to produce any protein manufactured and utilised in nature. That, as far as you're concerned, 'answers' the problem posed.

It's like saying that an artificial leg will replace the real thing.

Wise up, willya?

 

[jasoncran]

So the evidence indicates.



http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#discussion
by
Sean D Pitman M.D.

Sounds like fun. Let's get started.

Hmm... let's take a look at that reasoning...



Not the most logical person in the philosophy department, are you?

Redwoods have been grown from seeds, and that has been directly observed and recorded. You should know that - and that finishes your distorted caricature.

Just BTW, have you seen any documented observations of the evolution of one type of eye into another? Or do you just keep taking the pills?



What are you talking about?

You may be able to 'detect' a difference - but what is the physiology and biochemistry of the detection process? How many intermediate steps are involved before the message gets to your brain? How many unevolvable protein systems are involved? Tut tut, Barbarian. Try again.


So you see a spot of carbon black being a light receptor, connected to the 'brain' of the creature, able to provoke responses, do you? A trifle wishful, I would have said.



Could they just use carbon? Wishful again, are we? Stick a lump of coal in somebody's eye socket and let's see how much light they detect. They've tried it with glass eyes - but they don't work too well, you know.

And melanin. Simple? Who's been kidding you? Try this link:





As I said, glass eyes don't work too good. They lack something, don't they? What?



Did you read the following in your article? Doesn't it make you want to abandon your knee-jerk reflex answers? I'll highlight the bits that the poor creature with the eyespot didn't have, when it designed and constructed its eyespot biochemistry. I'll also leave out the journalistic claptrap.

Using sophisticated computer algorithms running on standard desktop computers, researchers have designed and constructed a novel functional protein that is not found in nature.

How many computers did that Paramecium have, Barbarian? How many sophisticated algorithms? How much designing and constructing did it do, before it could sense light?



No it didn't. It's Designer did the job for it.



I'm not embarrassed in the slightest Barbarian. Your answers are frivolous and inconsequential caricatures of the truth, which bear no relationship to the reasoned and careful accounting for the details you need to produce.

You are being presented with a magnificent piece of biochemical wizardry, and in order to avoid the force of the facts, are compelled to produce these shoddy caricatures.

I pointed out that in the photo-detection sequence there are many proteins involved. You quote some article which reports the failure of the researchers to produce any protein manufactured and utilised in nature. That, as far as you're concerned, 'answers' the problem posed.

It's like saying that an artificial leg will replace the real thing.

Wise up, willya?

did i read that right they assume or speculate that using a computer simulation based on the toe that this could have happened and yet pressumed thats it possible using a protein that is synthentic?

arugment by analogy and agurmentum non demonstratum isnt evidence.

life isnt a lab. empiracally can we observe this? can we do what my grandson is about to do this week freeze water and take measurements of its temp and compare to a saline solution and learn and make a conclusion that is repeatable and observable.
prioiris arent scientific.

 

[Barbarian]

Not the most logical person in the philosophy department, are you?

Well, let's check it out.

Redwoods have been grown from seeds, and that has been directly observed and recorded.

You have an example of a giant redwood someone raised from a seed? Or just smaller ones that are less than a hundred years old? You're talking about microgrowth, not macrogrowth. So just because you see smaller trees growing from seeds, you imagine that giant trees do, too. Don't you see how flawed your argument is? It's the same thing evolutionists do to argue for common descent. WFTH-I

Just BTW, have you seen any documented observations of the evolution of one type of eye into another?

George G. Simpson listed examples of the evolution of eyes in annelids and mollusks. You can find in mollusks, everything from simple eye spots up to complex eyes as detailed as those of humans.

Barbarian smiles:
Let's test that. One very hot summer day, about noon, take off your shirt, and let someone paint a dark black spot of India ink on your shoulder. Then walk into the direct sun and see if you can detect a difference.

What are you talking about?

The almost simplest eye. It can detect light and the direction from which it's coming.

You may be able to 'detect' a difference - but what is the physiology and biochemistry of the detection process?

Typical evolutionary change. It used pre-existing things to do it. Evolution always works that way. It's just a slight modification of what you already have.

How many intermediate steps are involved before the message gets to your brain?

No new ones. It uses what's there in a new way. Later, of course, if the spot turns out to be useful for survival, then mutations can make changes that make it more efficient. That process has been documented by Barry Hall, who showed it working in the evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. Would you like to learn about that?

How many unevolvable protein systems are involved?

No one's ever found an unevolvable protein system. For obvious reasons.

Barbarian chuckles:
So the simplest possible light sensitive spot would have one chemical with the complex formula of...

C. Carbon black. Strike two, doc.

So you see a spot of carbon black being a light receptor, connected to the 'brain' of the creature, able to provoke responses, do you?

Melanin. And yes.

Could they just use carbon?

Yep. Reduced carbon is easy enough for living things.

Stick a lump of coal in somebody's eye socket and let's see how much light they detect.

Coal isn't carbon. It's made up of various complex carbon compounds, but we already know a spot of pure carbon will work, as will any other dark pigment.

And melanin. Simple?

Yep. Pre-existing for other purposes, but works great as an eyespot.

Barbarian chuckles:
Let's see... a bit of carbon isolated into a spot. Sunlight. Pigment absorbs the energy, pre-existing nerves pick up the temp difference. Staggering complexity, man. Staggering.

As I said, glass eyes don't work too good.

Sorry, no bunny trails. Turns out a simple spot of pigment works nicely as a light-detecting organ.

(Async's doc claims humans can't build artificial proteins:

But in 2003:
Researchers Design and Build First Artificial Protein
http://www.hhmi.org/news/baker3.html

Strike three. Just short of a decade old. Your doc is a bit behind in his reading, um? His poor patients.

Did you read the following in your article?

Using sophisticated computer algorithms running on standard desktop computers, researchers have designed and constructed a novel functional protein that is not found in nature.


Yep. Your doc is stuffed with prunes. We've been able to make artificial proteins for almost a decade. And we know that they form abiotically where living things aren't around to eat them, because amino acids and peptides were found in the Murchison meteorite. Some of the amino acids were types unknown on Earth.

How many computers did that Paramecium have, Barbarian?

No bunny trails. As you see, the guy who wrote that claptrap has no idea what he's talking about.

Async, let me let you in on a secret. Those websites you've been cutting and pasting from are not for debating scientists. They are for reinforcing the zeal of uneducated creationists, who don't know all the things I've been showing you. Using them on people who know what they are talking about is guaranteed to embarrass you. You need to be copying from a better class of creationist.

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest Barbarian.

I read your denial, but your behavior shows something quite different. You've repeatedly tried to change the subject, you've gotten upset and abusive, and so on.

I pointed out that in the photo-detection sequence there are many proteins involved.

In some. But as you learned, that's not necessary. A useful light-detecting organ can be quite simple, and simple modifications of that organ can make it more useful yet. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You quote some article which reports the failure of the researchers to produce any protein manufactured and utilised in nature.

No, they set out to make a novel protein, and they did that. It would be easier to copy one.

That, as far as you're concerned, 'answers' the problem posed.

As learned, your doc doesn't know what he's talking about. He claimed we can't produce a protein. But that's been done for nearly ten years.

That was fun. Do youi have any more from that guy?

 

[theLords]

Back to topic. Anymore violations WILL result in loss of Access to this forum.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, let's check it out.

You have an example of a giant redwood someone raised from a seed? Or just smaller ones that are less than a hundred years old? You're talking about microgrowth, not macrogrowth. So just because you see smaller trees growing from seeds, you imagine that giant trees do, too. Don't you see how flawed your argument is? It's the same thing evolutionists do to argue for common descent. WFTH-I

This is just silly, and I won't waste time on it.

George G. Simpson listed examples of the evolution of eyes in annelids and mollusks. You can find in mollusks, everything from simple eye spots up to complex eyes as detailed as those of humans.

He may have produced a hypothetical series - but proved the 'evolution' of the eye? Nonsense. Remember, wishful thinking is not proof of anything.

Did Simpson, for example, account for the square reflecting eye of the rock lobster? Have you tried inventing an explanation for that one?

He, or you, for that matter, cannot account for the origin of the primitive eyespot, or for the instincts powering the use of that eyespot.

Let me beat that drum a little.

Organism A, the ancestor, has no eyespot. Organism B, the descendant, does have a functional eyespot.

Somehow, B knows what the eyespot is about, and can use the information it generates. A did not.

Response to light, either positive or negative, is instinctive, unlearned behaviour.

Somewhere, somehow, the information, the instinct, entered that animal.

Question: where did that instinct come from, and how did it enter the genome of the animal?

Barbarian smiles:
Let's test that. One very hot summer day, about noon, take off your shirt, and let someone paint a dark black spot of India ink on your shoulder. Then walk into the direct sun and see if you can detect a difference.

You'd better wipe that smile off. You aren't detecting light - you're detecting HEAT absorbed by the dark pigment.

You should learn the difference, you know.

Typical evolutionary change. It used pre-existing things to do it. Evolution always works that way. It's just a slight modification of what you already have.

No, no. This is gross question-begging, and is not allowed in an intelligent discussion. You are attempting to prove that evolution did take place.

You may not assert or assume that it did, and present that as proof that it did occur. You can do better than that - or try anyway.

No new ones. It uses what's there in a new way. Later, of course, if the spot turns out to be useful for survival, then mutations can make changes that make it more efficient.

I see.

Evolution is sufficiently intelligent to make these decisions on acquired information, and somehow pass them on to subsequent generations with improvements. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Only 2 problems with that inventive guess.

1 That is called Lamarckism. Acquired information and characteristics cannot be inherited.

2 Mutations are almost always neutral or deleterious. Point us toward a new genus/species that has arisen as a result of mutations. WITHOUT any question begging please.

That process has been documented by Barry Hall, who showed it working in the evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. Would you like to learn about that?

Another question-beggar?

Barbarian chuckles:
So the simplest possible light sensitive spot would have one chemical with the complex formula of...

C. Carbon black. Strike two, doc.

Just by the way, carbon black is not light-sensitive. It is used in various processes mixed with other chemicals. Because of its colour, it absorbs heat, but is not sensitive to light.

So I'm afraid you're on the nonsense trail again.

More later.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding evidence inferred but not directly observed:
You have an example of a giant redwood someone raised from a seed? Or just smaller ones that are less than a hundred years old? You're talking about microgrowth, not macrogrowth. So just because you see smaller trees growing from seeds, you imagine that giant trees do, too. Don't you see how flawed your argument is? It's the same thing evolutionists do to argue for common descent. WFTH-I

This is just silly

Of course. It's the same argument creationists use to say that no one has seen a horse evolve from a primitive mammal.

Barbarian observes:
George G. Simpson listed examples of the evolution of eyes in annelids and mollusks. You can find in mollusks, everything from simple eye spots up to complex eyes as detailed as those of humans.

He may have produced a hypothetical series - but proved the 'evolution' of the eye? Nonsense.

Better than that. He also demonstrated that the evolution of eyes in molluscs used the same tissues with gradual modifications.

Did Simpson, for example, account for the square reflecting eye of the rock lobster?

Lobsters aren't molluscs. I thought you knew.

He, or you, for that matter, cannot account for the origin of the primitive eyespot, or for the instincts powering the use of that eyespot.

As you learned, it's easy enough. Using existing tissues and substances, an organism can easily produce a radiation-detecting organ.

Organism A, the ancestor, has no eyespot. Organism B, the descendant, does have a functional eyespot.

Something causes a spot of dark pigment. Now, thermal energy and sunlight will cause the organism to be slightly warmer on that spot, and it can now act on that information.

Response to light, either positive or negative, is instinctive, unlearned behaviour.

Existing temperature-dependent behavior can now be applied. As you see, evolution builds nothing de novo; it's always a modification of existing things.

Question: where did that instinct come from, and how did it enter the genome of the animal?

Notice it's just a modification of something already there.

Barbarian smiles:
Let's test that. One very hot summer day, about noon, take off your shirt, and let someone paint a dark black spot of India ink on your shoulder. Then walk into the direct sun and see if you can detect a difference.

You'd better wipe that smile off. You aren't detecting light - you're detecting HEAT absorbed by the dark pigment.

Heat is light. Moreover, even visible light can produce heat. That's what a laser does, for example. A laser uses only visible light at a very restricted waveband, and yet, it causes heat.

Barbarian observes:
Typical evolutionary change. It used pre-existing things to do it. Evolution always works that way. It's just a slight modification of what you already have.

No, no.

Yep. Everytime we look, that's what happens. Would you like some more examples?

You may not assert or assume that it did, and present that as proof that it did occur.

That sort of thing is directly observed. Even the ICR and AiG admit that new species evolve, for example.

Barbarian observes:
No new ones. It uses what's there in a new way. Later, of course, if the spot turns out to be useful for survival, then mutations can make changes that make it more efficient.

Evolution is sufficiently intelligent to make these decisions on acquired information

No more than gravity and thermal energy are sufficiently intelligent to make a hurricane.

That is called Lamarckism.

No. You might want to go and read up on it. Natural selection is not part of Lamarckism, nor is random mutation.

Acquired information and characteristics cannot be inherited.

But mutations can be passed on, and that's all that's necessary.

Mutations are almost always neutral or deleterious.

Most do nothing. Some are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Point us toward a new genus/species that has arisen as a result of mutations.

O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploid mutation.


A new species of Drosophila, D. miranda, from D. psuedoobscura.
http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

(argument for lack of positive mutations leading to new characteristics)

Barbarian observes:
That process has been documented by Barry Hall, who showed it working in the evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. Would you like to learn about that?

Another question-beggar?

He documented what you argue is impossible.

Barbarian chuckles:
So the simplest possible light sensitive spot would have one chemical with the complex formula of...

C. Carbon black. Strike two, doc.

Just by the way, carbon black is not light-sensitive.

Turns out that it is. When it is exposed to visible light, it begins to radiate in the infrared.

So I'm afraid you're on the nonsense trail again.

It's a common way of enhancing the efficiency of passive solar collectors. Paint the collector black. Light causes the carbon to produce infrared rays, that are then collected and used.

More later.

Sounds like fun.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, the square facets of the adult rock lobster are preceded by the normal, hexagonal forms in the immature stages of the animal.
http://mpi-cbg.academia.edu/Monalis...vertebrate_Reproduction_and_development_2006_

It's rather pointless to argue such a change couldn't occur over many generations, when it occurs in the lifetime of a single individual.

 

[Asyncritus]

BTW, the square facets of the adult rock lobster are preceded by the normal, hexagonal forms in the immature stages of the animal.
http://mpi-cbg.academia.edu/Monalis...vertebrate_Reproduction_and_development_2006_

It's rather pointless to argue such a change couldn't occur over many generations, when it occurs in the lifetime of a single individual.

Oh yes?

And the absence of lenses which are replaced by 'mirrored sides'. What happened to the lenses, and why? And how did they get replaced? All at once, or bit by bit?

And how do you suppose the second stage arose evolutionarily? And why should it do so?

A man of your inventiveness can surely handle that little thing?

 

[Barbarian]

Oh yes?

Yep.

And the absence of lenses which are replaced by 'mirrored sides'. What happened to the lenses, and why?

They are "mirrored" in the same sense that a tank prism is "mirrored." No metallic coating, just the right angle and incidence of refraction. Which was already there. And usable even if the lenses had still been there. Would you like to learn why?

And how did they get replaced? All at once, or bit by bit?

Likely gradually. Neotonous lobsters would initially have both systems. But if the mirrors were by themselves adequate, lenses would be redundant.

And how do you suppose the second stage arose evolutionarily? And why should it do so?

Optically, first surface mirrors are better than lenses. But one would have to examine the environment of the organism to see why that would be better in that environment.

A man of your inventiveness can surely handle that little thing?

As you see, knowing a bit about the subject is better than inventiveness.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Yep.

They are "mirrored" in the same sense that a tank prism is "mirrored." No metallic coating, just the right angle and incidence of refraction. Which was already there. And usable even if the lenses had still been there. Would you like to learn why?

Now I'm convinced you know nothing about all this.

A 'tank prism' you say. You didn't say whether the tank prism evolved or not. Did it? Or was it intelligently designed by optical engineers who knew the laws of optics?

Now what is the 'right angle'? How did the tank prism engineers determine the 'right angle', and how did the rock lobster determine it?

You are clinging to a disastrous fact. The larva of the lobster has the normal eye structure, which is transformed into the reflecting eye of the adult.

That sounds evolution-ish, and is the fact that you are clinging to so desperately.

To puncture your balloon, I merely need to ask a few basic questions.

1 What evolutionary advantage is there in an optical unit that's halfway between a hexagon and a square? This is a critical question, because evolution can only proceed by adaptively advantageous steps.

2 How does a lens arrangement evolve into a reflecting arrangement? (note the word 'evolve'). For the benefit of those who may not know what I'm talking about, here are 2 diagrams, one of the reflecting arrangement of the rock lobster's eye, the other of the lens arrangement.

Please notice the vast difference between the 2 systems.

The rock lobster's eye. Notice, NOT A SINGLE LENS is in sight.:[/FONT]

View attachment 2175


​

[FONT=&quot] The lens arrangement: Unfortunately I can't upload any of the pictures or diagrams of the compound eyes of arthropods.

However, here is a typical link where you can see it for yourself:

http://www.biology-resources.com/drawing-compound-eye.html

Notice the large number of lenses in the eye. There is not a single one in the adult rock lobster eye.

Remember too, the arthropod eye works by refraction: the lens bends light to a focussing point, somewhat like ours.

The rock lobster eye doesn't do anything of the kind, as the diagram above shows.

There is absolutely no connection between the two types of eye, and it is a vain search for an explanation of the origin of the lobster's.

Likely gradually. Neotonous lobsters would initially have both systems. But if the mirrors were by themselves adequate, lenses would be redundant.

This is pure nonsense. The adequacy of their eyes is shown by the fact that rock lobsters are a successful group of animals as are the scallops - whose eyes are also reflecting, but in a much more complex fashion.

Optically, first surface mirrors are better than lenses. But one would have to examine the environment of the organism to see why that would be better in that environment.

Further nonsense.

Here'e Professor Dakin who was one of the first to describe the pecten eye, rejecting the nonsense above:

"Now it is very difficult to conceive of a complex structure, complex as these eyes, being the final result of a sifting by natural selection of a large number of chance variations, stress being laid on external factors. Indeed there is grave doubt as to whether the presence of any variations that might lead to such organs could have any survival value."

As you see, knowing a bit about the subject is better than inventiveness.

How would you know?
[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

Now I'm convinced you know nothing about all this.

Again, because you don't know much about optics. I happen to be a pretty fair photographer, and I've built compound optics in the lab. And I built a pretty good telescope using both (ahem) mirrors and lenses. Surprise.

A 'tank prism' you say. You didn't say whether the tank prism evolved or not. Did it? Or was it intelligently designed by optical engineers who knew the laws of optics?

In fact, optical engineers are beginning to learn how to use natural selection to produce optics that are superior to those that are designed. Here's a simple example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCAwWoQDpF0

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-40-34-6265

Turns out God knew what He was doing, after all.

Now what is the 'right angle'? How did the tank prism engineers determine the 'right angle', and how did the rock lobster determine it?

The tank prisms are based on chance observations of early lensmakers about critical angles in various glasses. And the rock lobster eyes evolved pretty much the way lenses do in genetic algorithms.

You are clinging to a disastrous fact. The larva of the lobster has the normal eye structure, which is transformed into the reflecting eye of the adult.

Yeah, it's pretty odd to claim that something can't evolve in a series of individuals, when it can change over time in one individual.

1 What evolutionary advantage is there in an optical unit that's halfway between a hexagon and a square?

Being able to see. It could be triangular or even round, and it would work.

2 How does a lens arrangement evolve into a reflecting arrangement? (note the word 'evolve').

Angle of incidence on the second surface has to change. Not a big thing.

For the benefit of those who may not know what I'm talking about, here are 2 diagrams, one of the reflecting arrangement of the rock lobster's eye, the other of the lens arrangement.

The rock lobster's eye. Notice, NOT A SINGLE LENS is in sight.:

The guys you cribbed this from, have misled you:

A number of differences exists between the compound eyes of larval and adult rock lobsters, Panulirus longipes. The larval eye more closely resembles the apposition type of compound eye, in which retinula cells and rhabdom lie immediately below the cone cells. The adult eye, on the other hand, is a typical clear-zone photoreceptor in which cones and retinula cell layers are separated by a wide transparent region. The rhabdom of the larval eye, if cut longitudinally, exhibits a ldquobandedrdquo structure over its entire length; in the adult the banded part is confined to the distal end, and the rhabdom is tiered. Both eyes have in common an eighth, distally-located retinula cell, which possesses orthogonally-oriented microvilli, and a peculiar lens-shaped ldquocrystalrdquo, which appears to focus light onto the narrow column of the distal rhabdom.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l005434663075078/

Surprise.

Remember too, the arthropod eye works by refraction: the lens bends light to a focussing point, somewhat like ours.

The rock lobster eye doesn't do anything of the kind, as the diagram above shows.

Turns out that it does. You were taken in by a pretty picture that doesn't reflect reality. (pun intended)

There is absolutely no connection between the two types of eye, and it is a vain search for an explanation of the origin of the lobster's.

In fact, as the report notes, there are quite a few similarities. The adult retains many of the juvenile characteristics.

Barbarian observes:
Likely gradually. Neotonous lobsters would initially have both systems. But if the mirrors were by themselves adequate, lenses would be redundant.

This is pure nonsense.

Turns out, I was right on.

Barbarian observes:
Optically, first surface mirrors are better than lenses. But one would have to examine the environment of the organism to see why that would be better in that environment.

Further nonsense.

If you think so, you know very little about optics. Look up "Newtonian Reflector" and learn.

 

[Asyncritus]

Again, because you don't know much about optics. I happen to be a pretty fair photographer, and I've built compound optics in the lab. And I built a pretty good telescope using both (ahem) mirrors and lenses. Surprise.

In fact, optical engineers are beginning to learn how to use natural selection to produce optics that are superior to those that are designed.

Heh heh heh!

Just goes to show how dumb they are! If chance can produce better stuff that they can, then they are dumb indeed. You among their number?

Hope not.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them?

Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it?[/FONT]

Sir Isaac Newton

Whaddaya say now?

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that engineers have come to realize that natural selection works better than design for many complex problems)

Heh heh heh!

Just goes to show how dumb they are!

Pretty slick, I think. But God is a lot smarter than any engineer. They're just copying His methods here.

If chance can produce better stuff that they can,

Darwin's discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.

then they are dumb indeed. You among their number?

I had to do some engineering courses to do some work on biomechanics. But I'm not a graduate engineer.

Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom,

Many of them, but not all. Some eyes have no covering whatever.

and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them?

Some of the fancier versions. But in some phyla, we still have many of the intermediate steps. Would you like to learn about them?

Whaddaya say now?

Issac must have been sleeping during biology lecture. To be fair, we didn't know much about the physiology and evolution of sight back then, and he knew little of comparative anatomy.