(May 11, 2017 at 3:28 pm)alpha male Wrote:(May 8, 2017 at 6:15 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: 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?
(May 8, 2017 at 9:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.
