The Missing Link and the Irreducible Complexity of the Eye

[Thumpalumpacus]

Organisms survive in their environment because they have what is necessary to do so. In an environment where there is not a lot of light, having eyes can actually be detrimental becase they use up metabolic resources the body could put to better use developing other senses needed in that environment.

If an organism can find food, reproduce and avoid predators with nothing more than light sensitive cells, it will survive, and eyes will not evolve unless the environment changes.

OK - organisms were apparently eating and reproducing before light sensitive cells, so what changed to make eyes evolve?

---

Consider: Most animals having a neurosystem have nerves at the skin for heat detection. The odds are that that photosensitive cell would be linked to a nerve at one point or another. And given the complexity of even nonhuman brains, and their plasticity, I don't see that a scaffold has not already been built.

This is the typical type of response to irreducible complexity, and it's not very satisfying. The tell is "given." Basically, given an organism that already has all but one piece of the system, adding one piece is plausible.

Even so, in this case, you haven't solved the problem. A photosensitive cell feeding information to a brain that's interpreting the input as heat is getting faulty information, and the organism is at a disadvantage relative to its peers.

As I've already pointed out, you don't understand the concept of "scaffolding". Thanks for acknowledging that publically.

Scaffolding and repurposing are clearly evident in genetic lineages. The fact that you're unaware of them -- or worse, unable to comprehend them -- doesn't weaken the theory. All it does is demonstrate your own limitations.

This is essentially an Argument from Incredulity, and as such won't be entertained. Reality doesn't care what you can and cannot believe ... nor do I, especially when based on such misapprehensions as you've proffered here.

As I've already pointed out, mutations not only may interact with the outside environment, they must inherently interact within their own genetic environment. And some mutations do not see phenotypic expression absent the presence of other, previously unrelated, genetic expressions.

Anyone who has read even a little on genetics understands that the interactions of genes are intertwined ... and your belief is not required or even desired, so long as you don't try to inflict your lack of understanding on the wider world through school systems etc.

[Amarok]

1. light sensitivity would have clear advantages even if the brain only registered the heat element

2. A species that registers light as heat would not be getting wrong information it's getting general information .Unless your about to say reflected light does not have a heat signature. To which  a species from there could come to view other elements of light and the object it's reflecting off

3. As for genetic yup he's clueless

4.  Scaffolding is explained above

5.indeed argument for incredulity essentially it's "I don't understand something therefore it's impossible"

6. You also missed willfully ignorant considering the amount of work done on this subject. But you know those scientists are just out to make money and are no different then apologist who justify there idea by feels or a bunch of religious zealots from the 1st century .

[Edwardo Piet]

OK - organisms were apparently eating and reproducing before light sensitive cells, so what changed to make eyes evolve?

Mutations with even one light sensitive cell would outsurvive and outbreed the completely blind organisms. Then natural selection gets to work and eventually eyes evolve.

It's not rocket science to anyone other than a creationist moron.

[Amarok]

OK - organisms were apparently eating and reproducing before light sensitive cells, so what changed to make eyes evolve?

Mutations with even one light sensitive cell would outsurvive and outbreed the completely blind organisms. Then natural selection gets to work and eventually eyes evolve.

It's not rocket science to anyone other than a creationist moron.

Pretty much a creature that can adapt it's heat sense to a ranged heat sense of reflected light then by pressure go on to view more distinct elements  of reflected light as this would improve the initial trait seems pretty simple to understand

[Rhondazvous]

Organisms survive in their environment because they have what is necessary to do so. In an environment where there is not a lot of light, having eyes can actually be detrimental becase they use up metabolic resources the body could put to better use developing other senses needed in that environment.

If an organism can find food, reproduce and avoid predators with nothing more than light sensitive cells, it will survive, and eyes will not evolve unless the environment changes.

OK - organisms were apparently eating and reproducing before light sensitive cells, so what changed to make eyes evolve?

To make such a claim, you must presume to know at what point animals had light sensitive cells.

[Minimalist]

Want to bet the idiot runs screaming from the room before watching this?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

[robybar]

Virtually, in order to develop a structure like an eye, you just need a single photosensitive protein (a rhodospin for example), useful for example in order to give a light-dark based idea of spatial orientation (assumed that the nervous system is still developing and capable of integrating new senses, so in early evolutionary times). It's just a matter of time before this protein begins to lead the formation of new structures and specialize, for example by being expressed in a certain kind of cell and in a certain body part, or by integrating other proteins for a better vision and support structures.
Several developing stages of the eye are now found among different clades and classes of animals, suggesting that the eye cannot be taken as an example of irreducible complexity. I am pretty sure that any other "example" of IC can be well explained by evolution.

[Minimalist]

Creatards love to think they are such hot shit.  They should use their eyes to read more than their stupid fucking bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#Eyes

The mantis shrimp has one of the most elaborate visual systems ever discovered.[13] Compared to the three types of colour-receptive cones that humans possess in their eyes, the eyes of a mantis shrimp carry 16 types of colour receptive cones. Furthermore, some of these shrimp can tune the sensitivity of their long-wavelength vision to adapt to their environment.[14] This phenomenon, known as "spectral tuning" is species-specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_eye

The eagle eye is among the strongest in the animal kingdom, with an eyesight estimated at 4 to 8 times stronger than that of the average human.[1] An eagle is said to be able to spot a rabbit 3.2 km away.[1] Although an eagle may only weigh 10 pounds (4.5 kg), its eyes are roughly the same size as those of a human.[1] As the eagle descends from the sky to attack its prey, the muscles in the eyes continuously adjust the curvature of the eyeballs to maintain sharp focus and accurate perception throughout the approach and attack.[1]

In addition to eagles, birds such as hawks, falcons, and robins have extraordinary vision which enable them to gather their prey easily. Their eyes are stated to be larger in size than their brain, by weight.[2] Colour vision with resolution and clarity are the most prominent features of eagles' eyes, hence sharp-sighted people are sometimes referred to as "eagle-eyed". Eagles can identify five distinctly-coloured squirrels and locate their prey even if hidden.[

[The Grand Nudger]

It's ironic, in that our own eye is, in reality, just one of the reducibly complex stages of development that explain far better evolved eyes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fact that some cave critters are losing their eyes is a fun thing to point out to the creatards.