Eye evolution

[Mallon]

Another transitional fossil was just described recently, filling another gap concerning the evolution of the vertebrate eye. The technical paper can be read here:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/567m1711432025rn/
A summary of the findings can be found here, along with a commentary on how this find relates to Intelligent Design:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/one-in-the-eye.html

 

[juvenissun]

Another transitional fossil was just described recently, filling another gap concerning the evolution of the vertebrate eye. The technical paper can be read here:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/567m1711432025rn/
A summary of the findings can be found here, along with a commentary on how this find relates to Intelligent Design:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/one-in-the-eye.html

The idea of gap filling, or finding transitional fossils is a rather stupid one in trying to support evolution. It will never make it.

As I said, it is simply a game of classification.

 

[Mallon]

The idea of gap filling, or finding transitional fossils is a rather stupid one in trying to support evolution. It will never make it.

As I said, it is simply a game of classification.

And I explained to you earlier why this view is wrong, in light of the fact that all life falls within a nested hierarchy.

This is not just an artifcat of subjective human classification. This is a predictable pattern of nature, and only evolution explains it.

 

[juvenissun]

And I explained to you earlier why this view is wrong, in light of the fact that all life falls within a nested hierarchy.

This is not just an artifcat of subjective human classification. This is a predictable pattern of nature, and only evolution explains it.

It is still within the practice of classification. I think the process of classifying objects is more complicate than you think. A good classification builds up an assumed sequence of change among classified objects. Along with that, there is also a model used to explain the change. And the system is able to expand and to accommodate all pieces of new data or object that fly in.

To me, that is what all the Paleontology is about. The model is called evolution and it is used to explain the classification. The classification is real, but the model (story) is not.

 

[Mallon]

To me, that is what all the Paleontology is about. The model is called evolution and it is used to explain the classification. The classification is real, but the model (story) is not.

In that case, what is your scientific explanation of the eye anatomy described in the placoderm fish above?

 

[gluadys]

The classification is real, but the model (story) is not.

Would not a true model also explain the classification? If the evolutionary model is not real, what is the true model? Will it not be known by its ability to explain the classification at least as well as, if not better, than evolution does?

And does it not also follow that a model which fails to explain the classification is not the true model?

If the true model is elusive and unknown, at least the evolutionary model, which does explain the classification, must be nearer the true model than any model which fails to explain the classification. Why not then use it until we discover the true model?

 

[juvenissun]

Would not a true model also explain the classification? If the evolutionary model is not real, what is the true model? Will it not be known by its ability to explain the classification at least as well as, if not better, than evolution does?

And does it not also follow that a model which fails to explain the classification is not the true model?

If the true model is elusive and unknown, at least the evolutionary model, which does explain the classification, must be nearer the true model than any model which fails to explain the classification. Why not then use it until we discover the true model?

Sounds reasonable.

However, when people talked about evolution, in most cases, they forgot it is only a model. So, new fossils may beef up the model, but it is still a model.

Since this model does not need God, so it is easier to be accepted by the majority of people.

 

[Mallon]

Since this model does not need God, so it is easier to be accepted by the majority of people.

You mean like atomic theory or weather forecasting?

 

[Smidlee]

So this deals with the arrangement of muscles and nerves around the eye as it seems this creature had fully functional eyes. How does this exactly give ID a black eye? And exactly how this helps prove Darwin's "the little eyeball that could" story? To me it seems we are still dealing with wishful thinking.
I find the eye evolution explanation as lame as the banana example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
This only works if you don't think about holding a pineapple in your hand. Eye evolution only works as long you don't think to much about all of it complex parts like Muller cells for example.

 

[Mallon]

So this deals with the arrangement of muscles and nerves around the eye as it seems this creature had fully functional eyes. How does this exactly give ID a black eye?

Because ID posits that the vertebrate eye cannot be fully functional unless it possesses all of its parts. You know, the whole "irreducibly complex" thing.
The above finding shows that the vertebrate eye could have evolved incrementally and yet remain fully functional.

 

[Smidlee]

Because ID posits that the vertebrate eye cannot be fully functional unless it possesses all of its parts. You know, the whole "irreducibly complex" thing.
The above finding shows that the vertebrate eye could have evolved incrementally and yet remain fully functional.

I still don't see it. How does the arrangement of muscles and nerves shows the eye isn't IC ? To me it's like saying putting the engine in the back of the car proves cars are not IC. I know I wouldn't want an eye without muscles and nerves. Then there is the complex Trilobite eye if you use the appearance of fossils as evidence.

 

[crawfish]

Sounds reasonable.

However, when people talked about evolution, in most cases, they forgot it is only a model. So, new fossils may beef up the model, but it is still a model.

Since this model does not need God, so it is easier to be accepted by the majority of people.

Camelot!

Camelot!

Camelot!

(It's only a model)

 

[Mallon]

I still don't see it. How does the arrangement of muscles and nerves shows the eye isn't IC ? To me it's like saying putting the engine in the back of the car proves cars are not IC. I know I wouldn't want an eye without muscles and nerves. Then there is the complex Trilobite eye if you use the appearance of fossils as evidence.

I think you're getting at one reason why irreducible complexity is bunk: It doesn't make any predictions. ID proponents will tell you that the human eye is irreducibly complex; that if you remove but one part, the whole system will fail. But here we have a much earlier vertebrate with simpler eyes and fewer muscles, and now you're saying "well, how do you know that eye isn't irreducibly complex?" It's an ad hoc argument. It's entirely reactive. We could go back even further in the fossil record and find even more primitive examples of eyes, and you would say those are irreducibly complex, too. But this only goes to show that it is entirely possible to have fully functional eyes, becoming incrementally more complex, from placoderms up through humans, as evolutionary theory posits.
Not only that, but as I alluded to above, as we go up through the fossil record, we can observe the vertebrate eye becoming increasingly more complex and integrated. Evolution explains this pattern, but ID does not.

 

[Smidlee]

Not only that, but as I alluded to above, as we go up through the fossil record, we can observe the vertebrate eye becoming increasingly more complex and integrated. Evolution explains this pattern, but ID does not.

Yet these evolution examples are still using the banana argument by picking what fits and ignoring what doesn't. Yes a banana does fit comfortably in my hand but what about the watermelon (trilobite)?

Like someone else wrote evolution explains everything.

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs can and genomes become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes evolve by evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

No doubt there are simpler eyes just as there are simpler cars ( for example my Honda doesn't have power steering) yet this don't mean that the simpler car isn't IC.

 

[Mallon]

Yet these evolution examples are still using the banana argument by picking what fits and ignoring what doesn't. Yes a banana does fit comfortably in my hand but what about the watermelon (trilobite)?

I don't see what you're getting at. Are you saying trilobites don't fit comfortably within the evolutionary scenario of the vertebrate eye? If not, why not? (Beyond the fact that trilobites and other arthropods did not give rise to vertebrates.)

No doubt there are simpler eyes just as there are simpler cars ( for example my Honda doesn't have power steering) yet this don't mean that the simpler car isn't IC.

I still don't understand your analogy. If I were to remove the hubcaps from a car, it would still be functional.

 

[Mallon]

A nice summary on what we know about the evolution of vertebrate eyes here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php

 

[chestertonrules]

In evolutionary theory, positive mutations are kept because they provide competitive advantage.

What competitive advantage is gained by the anvil without the eardrum?

What competitive advantage is gained by the pupil without the lens or optic nerve?

These mutations would not have survived because they offered no advantage to their host.

 

[Mallon]

These mutations would not have survived because they offered no advantage to their host.

Biological systems evolve in tandem, not independently, as you imply. So, while you are correct in saying that a functional anvil without an eardrum would be useless, this was historically not the case.

You can read more about the details of the mammalian middle ear here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1202224
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(195306)7:2<159:TEOTME>2.0.CO;2-C
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

... and more about the evolution of the vertebrate eye here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

[chestertonrules]

(Biological systems evolve in tandem, not independently, as you imply. So, while you are correct in saying that a functional anvil without an eardrum would be useless, this was historically not the case.))


I don't claim it was the case.


I claim that this fact makes it clear to rational thinkers that we are the product of design, not random mud flinging.

 

[shernren]

(Biological systems evolve in tandem, not independently, as you imply. So, while you are correct in saying that a functional anvil without an eardrum would be useless, this was historically not the case.))


I don't claim it was the case.


I claim that this fact makes it clear to rational thinkers that we are the product of design, not random mud flinging.

So, something that was never the case, makes it clear to rational thinkers (cough cough) that we are the product of design?

I see some mud-flinging, but it doesn't look random at all.