Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I can't, I'm not an expert on the genetics of eye evolution. It's possible that someone has a plausible estimate - you'll have to do some research. Eyes evolved independently many times, taking different routes, so there will be many different answers.sure. but can you show how many mutations need to make this first change?
My understanding of what Kylie meant by stating an arbitrary number is, that your argument is bogus no matter how many mutations are required to evolve an eye.any reference? and i dont talk about theoretical number.
any reference? and i dont talk about theoretical number.
no. as i said: you cant just add a lens by a single mutation. as you cant add a lens to a camera by a single step. you will need at least several matches changes to make it work.
so you have no reference. thanksWhat does it matter? You're just going to deny it anyway. So I figured why not just make up a number and see if we can actually continue with the discussion.
no. if you cant know how many mutations need to evolve an eye- then you cant know if evolution is possible.My understanding of what Kylie meant by stating an arbitrary number is, that your argument is bogus no matter how many mutations are required to evolve an eye.
so it can function as a lens already?Pinhole eyes that have no lens typically have a transparent layer over the aperture.
so it can function as a lens already?
there is also the problem of the first step- how a minimal eye evolved at the first place?.
but a photoreceptor is already a kind of a light detector. so how many mutations we need for the first light detector? (by the way: just as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not undernstand some of your words).What do you define as a minimal eye? Do you mean eyespots as in single cell organisms? If which case it's not much of a step from the previous functions of the photoreceptor proteins.
Do you know exactly how many steps you take to get from your computer to your refrigerator? No? Then you can't possibly ever get there and you'll starve to death.no. if you cant know how many mutations need to evolve an eye- then you cant know if evolution is possible.
Why? The number of mutations required is irrelevant, considering that at no point does the process demand that any of those mutations be useless independently, or appear one at a time or in any particular order. Plus, given how many times that eyes have evolved independently, there clearly are a large number of different mutation pathways that produce eyes.no. if you cant know how many mutations need to evolve an eye- then you cant know if evolution is possible.
a phtoreceptor will be useless without using the detection of light. so its not just a light detector but also a light "translator". so we need to assume at least 2-3 necessary parts to begin with.Why? The number of mutations required is irrelevant, considering that at no point does the process demand that any of those mutations be useless independently, or appear one at a time or in any particular order. Plus, given how many times that eyes have evolved independently, there clearly are a large number of different mutation pathways that produce eyes.
Heck, even finding the fewest necessary mutations to produce an eye would be pointless, because evolution is a natural process very unlikely to proceed down the most efficient path possible.
However, if one is generous and defines an eye as "a spot on a body or cell that is specialized to respond to light", that would only take 1 mutation; one that causes a portion of the body/cell to be darker and more heavily pigmented than the rest of it, since that is all that would be necessary for that spot to feel light differently than the rest.
You are presuming that single celled organisms cannot detect light, which is not true. All it takes is a dark patch, and that dark patch will get warmer than the rest of the cell when exposed to light, and the cell will respond to that. 1 part, since there is absolutely no reason that the cell couldn't have been able to respond to heat in general to begin with.a phtoreceptor will be useless without using the detection of light. so its not just a light detector but also a light "translator". so we need to assume at least 2-3 necessary parts to begin with.
You are presuming that single celled organisms cannot detect light, which is not true. All it takes is a dark patch, and that dark patch will get warmer than the rest of the cell when exposed to light, and the cell will respond to that. 1 part, since there is absolutely no reason that the cell couldn't have been able to respond to heat in general to begin with.
-_- how do you not understand that the "light detector" is the part of the cell that warms up MORE than the rest only when exposed to light? No other source of heat would make just that spot different from the rest of the cell, thus allowing for specified responses to light.heat isnt light. so this isnt a light detector.
so we have a photoreceptor in every cell in our skin?-_- how do you not understand that the "light detector" is the part of the cell that warms up MORE than the rest only when exposed to light? No other source of heat would make just that spot different from the rest of the cell, thus allowing for specified responses to light.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?