Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Esquilax]

It does have bearing. The reason given is that the eyespots were beneficial in that they enhanced the functioning of photoperiodism and circadian rhythms. This begs the question of how those things developed without eyespots.

And if I don't know, does that somehow make the reason wrong? Why would you go with such an obvious argument from ignorance?

Besides, you understand that there are other methods of detecting the day/night cycle than light detection, right? Bloody fetuses have a circadian rhythm, you know. Ain't no light where they are. Circadian rhythms in particular are very easily obtained, even cyanobacteria can have them.

However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine:

These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle.

First question is why a multicellular eyepatch developed.

Because larger patches of light sensitive cells allow an organism to better detect things moving in front of light sources, like obstacles or predators. Danger. Hence, it's a survival enhancer. How did it initially develop? Mutation, like everything else.

Next is why did it gradually depress into a cup.

Again, it began as a mutation, but being able to monitor direction with greater specificity is an even better survival mechanism because now you have a better idea of where the danger is coming from.

Then, how did the organism know what to do with directional information.

That's already been explained to you: light sensitivity without a method of processing the input isn't a disadvantage, and so it persists in those that develop it. From there, all it takes is one mutation to give even a little processing ability to be a pretty nice survival advantage. See, mutations don't just vanish after one generation if there's no use or advantage to them.

My contention is that "somehow" isn't an adequate explanation.

Mutations happen randomly. Don't blame me, blame imperfect gene transcription. Oh, and "this isn't an adequate explanation of the evidence that shows that it did happen," is an argument from ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html

Mutation creates new alleles. Each new allele enters the gene pool as a single copy amongst many. Most are lost from the gene pool, ...

Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear...

Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones.

"It's improbable, therefore it's impossible," really?