the self replicating watch argument

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

sure. but can you show how many mutations need to make this first change?

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.

 

[Kylie]

sure. but can you show how many mutations need to make this first change?

It requires 23 mutations.

 

[xianghua]

It requires 23 mutations.

any reference? and i dont talk about theoretical number.

 

[Speedwell]

any reference? and i dont talk about theoretical number.

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.

 

[Kylie]

any reference? and i dont talk about theoretical number.

What 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.

 

[pitabread]

and i dont talk about theoretical number.

Oh, the irony.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I've been away for a while, and it looks as if exactly the same people are having exactly the same argument.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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.

Pinhole eyes that have no lens typically have a transparent layer over the aperture. Where this is two layers with fluid in between, then there is then a clear pathway from a covered pinhole eye to eyes with better and better lenses.

There's no sudden step of adding a lens.

 

[xianghua]

What 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.

so you have no reference. thanks

 

[xianghua]

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.

no. if you cant know how many mutations need to evolve an eye- then you cant know if evolution is possible.

 

[xianghua]

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?.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so it can function as a lens already?

No. Pinhole eyes don't have a lens. The transparent covering protects the eye. From your question, I suspect that you don't know about pinhole eyes and their place in the evolution of the eye. In which case, you can't really make any comments on the evolution of the eye until you understand current evidence and theory.

there is also the problem of the first step- how a minimal eye evolved at the first place?.

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. Again, I'm concerned that you're trying to discuss the evolution of the eye without knowing much of anything about it.

 

[xianghua]

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.

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).

 

[Speedwell]

no. if you cant know how many mutations need to evolve an eye- then you cant know if evolution is possible.

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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.

 

[xianghua]

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.

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

But, you ignore again that the number of parts is irrelevant when the individual parts can have functions by themselves.

 

[xianghua]

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.

heat isnt light. so this isnt a light detector.

 

[PsychoSarah]

heat isnt light. so this isnt a light detector.

-_- 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.

 

[xianghua]

-_- 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.

so we have a photoreceptor in every cell in our skin?