Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

[The Barbarian]

Earthworms do not have eyes, optic nerves, or pupils, and they lack the genes necessary for these structures to form.

Background: Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny. Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida. Members of these basal groups show a comparatively simple organization lacking certain characters regarded to be annelid specific. Thus, the evolution of organ systems and the characteristics probably present in the last common annelid ancestor require reevaluation. With respect to light-sensitive organs, a pair of simple larval eyes is regarded as being present in their last common ancestor.

Ultrastructure of cerebral eyes in Oweniidae and Chaetopteridae (Annelida) - implications for the evolution of eyes in Annelida - PubMed

These findings shed new light on the evolutionary history of adult eyes in Annelida. Most likely, the adult eye of the annelid stem species was a pair of simple pigment spot eyes with only slightly specialized PSCs and PRCs being an integrative part of the epidermis. As is the case for the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In fact, earthworms have genes for rhodopsin, the pigment that makes eyes functional. This is how earthworms are able to detect light and even color.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.1510

They also do not have the photoreceptor cells and opsin genes that are essential for vision.

Sorry, that's wrong.

The "frequency" of a membrane-bound nucleus in a prokaryote is zero .

By definition if it has a completely-formed
nucleus, it's not a prokaryote. However...
Complex cell plan. The major difference between most Gram-negative (G(−)) bacteria and PVC members is that the cytoplasmic membrane is invaginated, sometimes extensively, in the cytoplasm to define different types of cellular organization [27,28]. Our previous publication [29] and ongoing work demonstrate that the PVC outer and innermost membranes are not different from the outer and inner membranes of G(−) bacteria, and that the space between them (called paryphoplasm) is equivalent to the periplasm. This is ultimately demonstrated by the fact that, like in other bacteria, ribosomes line up against the inner membrane and, in PVC members, its invaginations. The main difference is that the PVC periplasm is usually larger with a more complex organization than the ‘classical’ bacterial periplasm. This feature is shared between PVC members but shows important variations [28,30]. In the planctomycete Gemmata obscuriglobus, the invaginations and derived membrane morphologies appear to be dynamic and cell cycle-dependent [29]. The presence of this feature in most PVC members suggests that the ancestor of the PVC supergroup already had this feature [28]. In addition, it has been claimed that the G. obscuriglobus surrounds its genomic DNA with a folded single membrane, topologically similar to the eukaryotic nuclear envelope [31]. It is, however, unclear whether this membrane completely surrounds the DNA and detailed three-dimensional studies of this planctomycete are needed to solve this important issue.

Transitional forms between the three domains of life and evolutionary implications - PMC

The question as to the origin and relationship between the three domains of life is lodged in a phylogenetic impasse. The dominant paradigm is to see the three domains as separated. However, the recently characterized bacterial species have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So we have the predicted transitional form between true prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Prokayrotes leave no fossils

Sorry, that's false, too...

The first fossils of prokaryotic (bacterial) cells are known from 3.5 and 3.4 billion years ago. These bacteria were photosynthetic (although non-oxygen producing) so it is likely that simpler non-photosynthetic bacteria evolved prior to this (Schopf, 1987; Beukes, 2004).

Prokaryotes

sunyorange.edu

You are simply holding on to guesswork as if wild guesses are "Science fact" no matter the observations in nature.

Since evolution is an observed fact, no point in denying.

Mutation is an observed fact -- evolution is not.

No, you have that wrong, too. Most YECs don't have any idea what "evolution" actually is. It's "descent with modification" (Darwin) or more precisely, " a change in allele frequencies in a population." Which we observe constantly. Your comments indicate that you have confused universal common descent with evolution. It's one of the things holding you back in understanding the issue.

Increased frequency in already present gene is not evolution.

Here, you're confusing individuals with populations. Individuals don't evolve; populations do. And yes, the change in frequencies of existing genes is also evolution.

For evolution from prokaryote to eukaryote - from eukaryote to Rabbit etc requires the addition of entirely new novel genes over time not simply "increase frequency" for already existing genes.

The two major sources of new genes are gene duplication/mutation and mutation of non-coding DNA. Would you like to learn how we know this?

It's not as mysterious or magical as you seem to think.

 

[BobRyan]

Background: Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny.

[/quote]
Don't you just love it - when guesswork is improved by adding "more guesswork"?

I prefer "observations in nature" over "guesswork instead of observed nature"

Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida.

They were "catagorized"? How nice.

The "problem" remains the same

For supposedly 514 million years -- earthworms have not managed to get an eye

BobRyan said:

Earthworms do not have eyes, optic nerves, or pupils, and they lack the genes necessary for these structures to form.

it has been claimed that the G. obscuriglobus surrounds its genomic DNA with a folded single membrane, topologically similar to the eukaryotic nuclear envelope [31]. It is, however, unclear whether this membrane completely surrounds the DNA and detailed three-dimensional studies of this planctomycete are needed to solve this important issue.

Transitional forms between the three domains of life and evolutionary implications - PMC

The question as to the origin and relationship between the three domains of life is lodged in a phylogenetic impasse. The dominant paradigm is to see the three domains as separated. However, the recently characterized bacterial species have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So we have the predicted transitional form between true prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

studies are needed to expand on that guesswork instead of just pronouncing it "done".

Sorry, that's false, too...

The first fossils of prokaryotic (bacterial) cells are known from 3.5 and 3.4 billion years ago. These bacteria were photosynthetic (although non-oxygen producing) so it is likely that simpler non-photosynthetic bacteria evolved prior to this

"so it is likely"??? a classic feature of "guesswork"

Prokaryotes are simpler, lacking a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles, while eukaryotes are more complex with a nucleus and various organelles.

You are simply holding on to guesswork as if wild guesses are "Science fact" no matter the observations in nature.

My point exactly. Evolutionism is guesswork

Most YECs don't have any idea what "evolution" actually is.

not true

It's "descent with modification" (Darwin) or more precisely, " a change in allele frequencies in a population."

that's the fallacy of equivocation between the wild guess work model of evolutionism and observed fact in nature.

Changing the frequency of something that already exists - will never get you new novel genes. Alleles are stuck as "variations in the same gene" not "new novel genes".

514Million years of worms with no eyes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny. Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida. Members of these basal groups show a comparatively simple organization lacking certain characters regarded to be annelid specific. Thus, the evolution of organ systems and the characteristics probably present in the last common annelid ancestor require reevaluation. With respect to light-sensitive organs, a pair of simple larval eyes is regarded as being present in their last common ancestor.

Don't you just love it - when guesswork is improved by adding "more guesswork"?

Ignorance on your part does not convert observations in nature to guesswork.

For supposedly 514 million years -- earthworms have not managed to get an eye

Turns out, your assumptions were incorrect. Earthworks do retain optic pigments and can detect light and even color.

Prokaryote found with partially-formed memberane enclosing DNA
So we have the predicted transitional form between true prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

studies are needed to expand on that guesswork instead of just pronouncing it "done"

It's exactly what YECs insisted could not be. But it was predicted by evolutionary theory. The remaining question is whether or not the membrane completely encloses DNA (which would be by definition a eukarotic form) or whether it's only partial, indicating a transitional form between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. This is a devastating problem for those who would deny the evolution of prokaryocyetes.

BobRyan said:
Prokayrotes leave no fossils

That's wrong, too:

The first fossils of prokaryotic (bacterial) cells are known from 3.5 and 3.4 billion years ago.

"so it is likely"???

Nope. Absolutely documented fossils of prokaryocytes.

Prokaryotes are simpler, lacking a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles,

Except for that transitional form I showed you.

My point exactly. Evolutionism is guesswork

As you learned, it's an observed phenomenon. You seem to have yet again confused common descent with evolution. Do you remember the definition of biological evolution? Hint: "change in allele frequencies in a population." Most YECs don't have any idea what "evolution" actually is.

not true

For example, you just demonstrated that you don't know what it is.

that's the fallacy of equivocation between the wild guess work model of evolutionism and observed fact in nature.

"Evolutionism" seems to be a YEC strawman. But biological evolution is well-defined and observed in living populations. So you can whack at the strawman, or deal with the observed fact of evolution. Your choice.

Changing the frequency of something that already exists - will never get you new novel genes.

The way new genes form is well-understood. It can come about through gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of them, or by the mutation of non-coding DNA. No point in denial.

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
. 2015 Sep 26

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation​

New genes via gene duplication.

Molecular evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

514Million years of worms with no eyes.

Hallucigenia, for example, had eyes from the Early Cambrian. Again, you let your imagination fill in where you don't have facts. It's not just any worms, even many annelids (earthworms are annelids) have eyes.

Summary​

Annelid worms are simultaneously an interesting and difficult model system for understanding the evolution of animal vision. On the one hand, a wide variety of photoreceptor cells and eye morphologies are exhibited within a single phylum...

Annelid Vision

"Annelid Vision" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

 

[BobRyan]

Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny. Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida. Members of these basal groups show a comparatively simple organization lacking certain characters regarded to be annelid specific. Thus, the evolution of organ systems and the characteristics probably present in the last common annelid ancestor require reevaluation. With respect to light-sensitive organs, a pair of simple larval eyes is regarded as being present in their last common ancestor.


Ignorance on your part does not convert observations in nature to guesswork.

Earth worms do not have eyes - nope not even after supposedly 514Million years

Turns out, your assumptions were incorrect.

You take a picture of your earthworms with eyes
I will take a picture of the real earthworms in real life without eyes - and we can post them here -- do a side-by-side compare.

Earthworks do retain optic pigments

The difference "between a pigment" and and actual eye - is night and day.

Have you ever studied biology? Did you not notice this??

useful optic pigments - (ones that actually do something useful for an actual eye_ - are found in the photoreceptor cells of the retina, specifically in rods and cones.

worms without rods , cones or a retina .... "do not have eyes".

This may not appear to be apparent if one is trying to claim that worms have eyes. But it is true all the same.

 

[BobRyan]

Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny. Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida. Members of these basal groups show a comparatively simple organization lacking certain characters regarded to be annelid specific. Thus, the evolution of organ systems and the characteristics probably present in the last common annelid ancestor require reevaluation. With respect to light-sensitive organs, a pair of simple larval eyes is regarded as being present in their last common ancestor.


Ignorance on your part does not convert observations in nature to guesswork.

Turns out, your assumptions were incorrect. Earthworks do retain optic pigments and can detect light and even color.

Prokaryote found with partially-formed memberane enclosing DNA
So we have the predicted transitional form between true prokaryotes and eukaryotes.


It's exactly what YECs insisted could not be.

Your own article admits that they did NOT find the "a membrane enclosing the DNA" and the article said they wanted more research - but you have already pronounced success even though Eukaryotes have all DNA entirely enclosed in a single nuclear cell wall membrane-bound organelles -- and what are you offering in its place?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your own article admits that they did NOT find the "a membrane enclosing the DNA"

If it did completely, it would be a eukaryote, not a transitional between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. But here it is, transitional between prokarotes, which have no membrane around the DNA, and eukaryotes with a fully enclosed membrane.

but you have already pronounced success even though Eukaryotes have all DNA entirely enclosed in a single nuclear cell wall membrane-bound organelles

"Eukaryote" is not capitalized. And the predicted result is just what it should be; transitional between the two groups. A complete membrane would have simply made it a eukaryote.

and what are you offering in its place?

A transition between the two. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted, and precisely what YEC cannot accept. But there it is. Reality can be annoying and inconvenient, but it has the virtue of being real.

 

[The Barbarian]

Earth worms do not have eyes - nope not even after supposedly 514Million years

Recent phylogenomic studies have revealed a robust, new hypothesis of annelid phylogeny. Most surprisingly, a few early branching lineages formed a basal grade, whereas the majority of taxa were categorized as monophyletic Pleistoannelida. Members of these basal groups show a comparatively simple organization lacking certain characters regarded to be annelid specific. Thus, the evolution of organ systems and the characteristics probably present in the last common annelid ancestor require reevaluation. With respect to light-sensitive organs, a pair of simple larval eyes is regarded as being present in their last common ancestor.


Ignorance on your part does not convert observations in nature to guesswork.

Earthworms today don't have eyes. But as you now realize, eyes are common in that phylum. You might as well argue that vertebrates don't have eyes, because some cave fish don't have eyes

The difference "between a pigment" and and actual eye - is night and day.

Which, as you learned, earthworms can distinguish. They even retain the ability to detect colors. Because the genes for opsins are still there, even if they've lost eyes. Have you ever studied biology? Did you not notice this??

useful optic pigments - (ones that actually do something useful for an actual eye_ - are found in the photoreceptor cells of the retina, specifically in rods and cones.

No, that's wrong, too...
Although some worms have eyes, earthworms do not. However, they do have specialized photosensitive cells called "light cells of Hess". These photoreceptor cells have a central intracellular cavity (phaosome) filled with microvilli. As well as the microvilli, there are several sensory cilia in the phaosome which are structurally independent of the microvilli.[27] The photoreceptors are distributed in most parts of the epidermis, but are more concentrated on the back and sides of the worm. A relatively small number occur on the ventral surface of the first segment. They are most numerous in the prostomium, and reduce in density in the first three segments; they are very few in number past the third segment.[

Earthworm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because you've never studied biology, you have no idea of the way things actually work in living organisms.

worms without rods , cones or a retina .... "do not have eyes".

But they do have structures capable of photoreception and even color perception. They are different than most other annelid worms in not having specific eyes with all the parts you think are necessary. But they still can see light and color. All the stages, from a simple pigmented spot to complex vertebrate or cephalopod eyes still exist in living things today. Would you like to learn about that?

This may not appear to be apparent if one is trying to claim that worms have eyes. But it is true all the same.

Your assumption that eyes popped up, complete and out of nowhere has taken you down. Learn about it here:

Notice that the first stage in eye evolution is where earthworms are. Biology is a lot more complex and interesting than you assumed. The cupped cell structure found in earthworms allows more accurate directional sensing and even rough perception of light/dark areas.

 

[The Barbarian]

Photoreceptor cells in the epidermis and nerve branches of the prostomium and in the cerebral ganglion of Lumbricus terrestris were investigated with the electron microscope. The photoreceptor cell is similar to the visual cell of Hirudo by having a central intracellular cavity (phaosome) filled with microvilli. Besides microvilli, several sensory cilia can also be found in the phaosome but they are structurally independent of the microvilli. A gradual branching of the phaosome cavity into smaller cavities makes its sectional profile extremely labyrinthic. Flattened smooth-surfaced cisternae in stacks of 2 to 5 are frequently observed around the phaosome. Characteristic constituents of the cytoplasm are vesicles and vacuoles filled with a substance of varying density. The photoreceptor cell is covered by glial cells or by their processes which at many places deeply invaginate the cell surface (trophospongium).

Fine structure of photoreceptor cells in the earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris - Cell and Tissue Research

Photoreceptor cells in the epidermis and nerve branches of the prostomium and in the cerebral ganglion of Lumbricus terrestris were investigated with the electron microscope. The photoreceptor cell is similar to the visual cell of Hirudo by having a central intracellular cavity (phaosome) filled...

link.springer.com

 

[jacks]

Some birds have gotten very big.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some birds have gotten very big.View attachment 366159

The largest species of elephant bird (Vrombe titan) was over 10 feet tall and weighed over 1400 lbs. Which is about the same size as the median non-avian dinosaur size.

Determining Average Dinosaur Size

Most literature states the average dinosaur was only the size of a sheep. This paper hopefully assists creationists base statements on the best available data.

answersresearchjournal.org

Since oxygen levels in the Cretaceous were about 50% higher than they are today, it seems likely that it had some effect on size.

 

[AaronClaricus]

Your own article admits that they did NOT find the "a membrane enclosing the DNA" and the article said they wanted more research - but you have already pronounced success even though Eukaryotes have all DNA entirely enclosed in a single nuclear cell wall membrane-bound organelles -- and what are you offering in its place?

We still have transitional genera between prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells.

Promethearchaeota has unique eukaryotic features and reveals their roles in bacteria. It even has the protein necessary to consume Alphaproteobacteria which has proteins that allow it to be consumed as a parasite or in the case of the LECA(last eukaryotic common ancestor) a symbiote.

Before the 21st century this would've been practically impossible to study in depth. It's certainly not incredible to believe an ancient intracellular parasite(first image, red dots) and a weird bacteria(second image) got fused 2.2 billion years ago.

 

[The Barbarian]

Before the 21st century this would've been practically impossible to study in depth. It's certainly not incredible to believe an ancient intracellular parasite(first image, red dots) and a weird bacteria(second image) got fused 2.2 billion years ago.

We are such organisms. The mitochondria within our cells are actually symbiotic bacteria, each with their own bacterial DNA by which they reproduce. And such a symbiosis has been directly observed to happen...

In 1966, microbiologist Kwang Jeon was studying single-celled organisms called amoebae, when his amoebae communities were struck by an unexpected plague: a bacterial infection. Literally thousands of the tiny invaders — named x-bacteria by Jeon — squeezed inside each amoeba cell, causing the cell to become dangerously sick. Only a few amoebae survived the epidemic.

However, several months later, the few surviving amoebae and their descendants seemed to be unexpectedly healthy. Had the amoebae finally managed to fight off the x-bacterial infection? Jeon and his colleagues were surprised to find that the answer was no — the x-bacteria were still thriving inside their amoebae hosts, but they no longer made the amoebae sick. There were more surprises when Jeon used antibiotics to kill the bacteria inside an amoeba — the host amoeba also died! The amoebae could no longer live without their former attackers. Jeon discovered that this was because the bacteria make a protein that the amoebae need to survive. The nature of the relationship between the two species had changed entirely: from attack and defense to cooperation.

It Takes Teamwork: How Endosymbiosis Changed Life on Earth

evolution.berkeley.edu

We can now do nothing at all, not even survive, without our endosymbiotic bacteria. Mitochondria are responsible for generating energy in cellular respiration. They convert nutrients into ATP.

 

[AaronClaricus]

We are such organisms. The mitochondria within our cells are actually symbiotic bacteria, each with their own bacterial DNA by which they reproduce. And such a symbiosis has been directly observed to happen...

In 1966, microbiologist Kwang Jeon was studying single-celled organisms called amoebae, when his amoebae communities were struck by an unexpected plague: a bacterial infection. Literally thousands of the tiny invaders — named x-bacteria by Jeon — squeezed inside each amoeba cell, causing the cell to become dangerously sick. Only a few amoebae survived the epidemic.

However, several months later, the few surviving amoebae and their descendants seemed to be unexpectedly healthy. Had the amoebae finally managed to fight off the x-bacterial infection? Jeon and his colleagues were surprised to find that the answer was no — the x-bacteria were still thriving inside their amoebae hosts, but they no longer made the amoebae sick. There were more surprises when Jeon used antibiotics to kill the bacteria inside an amoeba — the host amoeba also died! The amoebae could no longer live without their former attackers. Jeon discovered that this was because the bacteria make a protein that the amoebae need to survive. The nature of the relationship between the two species had changed entirely: from attack and defense to cooperation.

It Takes Teamwork: How Endosymbiosis Changed Life on Earth

evolution.berkeley.edu

We can now do nothing at all, not even survive, without our endosymbiotic bacteria. Mitochondria are responsible for generating energy in cellular respiration. They convert nutrients into ATP.

That's was kind of the point of my post. It assumes we(metazoa/animals) are a type of promethearchaea that has ingested and undergone full endosymbiosis with alphaproteobacteria. And probably one other bacteria but nobody likes to talk about that one.

That's an interesting example but I'm finding it was only ever one team and the research on it has stopped. Would like to know what bacteria-x was and what proteins were transferred.

There are currently species undergoing endosymbiosis. Costasiella kuroshimae and Eysia chlorotia eat algae and it becomes embedded in their bodies. They've been doing it for so long that significant gene transfer has happened allowing them to go several months without eating new algae. They are even in different stages of symbiosis, one has been doing it long enough to undergo speciation several times. Another is in the very early stages. Between all the species in both families there is a wide mix.

Paulinella completed it's endosymbiosis about 100 million years ago.

Pseudoblepharisma has two endosymbiotic bacteria.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's was kind of the point of my post. It assumes we(metazoa/animals) are a type of promethearchaea that has ingested and undergone full endosymbiosis with alphaproteobacteria. And probably one other bacteria but nobody likes to talk about that one.

I have a bachelor's degree in bacteriology, but I haven't really kept up with it for decades. But I saw this:

Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes​

Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes - Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences

Endosymbiosis and organellogenesis are virtually unknown among prokaryotes. The single presumed example is the endosymbiogenetic origin of mitochondria, which is hidden behind the event horizon of the last eukaryotic common ancestor. While eukaryotes are monophyletic, it is unlikely that during...

link.springer.com

Kwang Jeon refers to the bacteria in his study as "Legionella-like."

Genetic and physiological interactions in the amoeba-bacteria symbiosis - PubMed

Amoebae of the xD strain of Amoeba proteus that arose from the D strain by spontaneous infection of Legionella-like X-bacteria are now dependent on their symbionts for survival. Each xD amoeba contains about 42,000 symbionts within symbiosomes, and established xD amoebae die if their symbionts...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[AaronClaricus]

I have a bachelor's degree in bacteriology, but I haven't really kept up with it for decades. But I saw this:

Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes​

Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes - Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences

Endosymbiosis and organellogenesis are virtually unknown among prokaryotes. The single presumed example is the endosymbiogenetic origin of mitochondria, which is hidden behind the event horizon of the last eukaryotic common ancestor. While eukaryotes are monophyletic, it is unlikely that during...

link.springer.com

Kwang Jeon refers to the bacteria in his study as "Legionella-like."

Genetic and physiological interactions in the amoeba-bacteria symbiosis - PubMed

Amoebae of the xD strain of Amoeba proteus that arose from the D strain by spontaneous infection of Legionella-like X-bacteria are now dependent on their symbionts for survival. Each xD amoeba contains about 42,000 symbionts within symbiosomes, and established xD amoebae die if their symbionts...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Two-domain system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two domain system probably renders protoeukaryotes obsolete. But I'm more of a fan of hypotheses that add in another contributor. Nucleoctyoviricota is a common infector of eukaryotes. It has a nucleus with nuclear pores like eukaryotes. In this case protoeukaryotes would be promethearchaea that has ingested and undergone full endosymbiosis with alphaproteobacteria. Then another endosymbiosis event with Nucleocytoviricota(or similar virus that is now endogenous) to form the nucleus. Yielding a protoeukaryote that's different from most older hypotheses.

 

[BobRyan]

Before the 21st century this would've been practically impossible to study in depth. It's certainly not incredible to believe an ancient intracellular parasite(first image, red dots) and a weird bacteria(second image) got fused 2.2 billion years ago.

View attachment 366212
View attachment 366213

evolution requires that we imagine a great many things - then believe what we imagined.

 

[BobRyan]

Earthworms today don't have eyes.

Obviously

worms can sense light, even without having eyes. They have light-sensitive cells in their bodies that allow them to detect and respond to light. These cells, which are often found in flatworms, help them move away from light sources, which can be harmful or dehydrating

That is very different from actual eyes where light is used to see something

having the ability to sense and light and run away from it - not the same thing as seeing with an actual eye that such life forms failed to develop over 514 million years -- because eyes don't actually evolve over 514 million years..

 

[AaronClaricus]

evolution requires that we imagine a great many things - then believe what we imagined.

First we imagined these organisms(no others fit the cladogram), then we found them(in 2003 and 2015) and in less than 10 years(2035) we will have synthetic protoeukaryotes. The 21st century is blurring imagination with reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

worms can sense light, even without having eyes. They have light-sensitive cells in their bodies

Structures that include light-sensitive cells. You know what they call structures with light-sensitive cells? As you just learned, they are the second step in the evolution of animal eyes.

These cells, which are often found in flatworms,

Flatworm eyes are also cup-shaped, being an example of the second step. They are called ocelli.

That is very different from actual eyes where light is used to see something

Actually, it's not. The cup-shaped ocelli are one step more effective at seeing things than mere flat spots of light-sensitive cells. Do you see why?

because eyes don't actually evolve over 514 million years..

You have your unsupported belief. Scientists have a vast body of evidence.

You lose.

 

[The Barbarian]

First we imagined these organisms(no others fit the cladogram), then we found them(in 2003 and 2015) and in less than 10 years(2035) we will have synthetic protoeukaryotes. The 21st century is blurring imagination with reality.

Exactly. The key to scientific theories is that they make just such verified predictions.