The Missing Link and the Irreducible Complexity of the Eye

[The Grand Nudger]

even a poorly performing eye organ is better (from a survival aspect) than not having one at all

Not necessarily. People always talk about a photosensitive cell. By itself, it's no better than nothing at all.

You think so?  Odd, since all complex life on earth is predicate upon those useless photo-receptors and their ability to track the sun..............

OFC, you don't actually need a cell for that, photo-reactive compounds like auxin can, by virtue of their chemical (not structural) composition, convey some benefit...and they do - most of the time in concert with those useless cells above. Tinkergod™ clearly had a thing for the stuff it's believers don't believe in, shits literally everywhere.

[Thumpalumpacus]

even a poorly performing eye organ is better (from a survival aspect) than not having one at all

Not necessarily. People always talk about a photosensitive cell. By itself, it's no better than nothing at all.

I'd suggest you look up "scaffolding". No mutation exists in a vacuum. Their environment is not only the outer world, but the genetic environment the mutations arise in. A light-sensitive cell arises in a brainless animal? You might have a point. It arises in an animal which has a brain? The possibility of processing exists. If it can and does, then you've got a whole 'nother ball of wax.

More creationist binary thinking on display here.

[Amarok]

The term missing link was a media term not a scientific one

[John V]

Not necessarily. People always talk about a photosensitive cell. By itself, it's no better than nothing at all.

I'd suggest you look up "scaffolding". No mutation exists in a vacuum. Their environment is not only the outer world, but the genetic environment the mutations arise in. A light-sensitive cell arises in a brainless animal? You might have a point. It arises in an animal which has a brain? The possibility of processing exists. If it can and does, then you've got a whole 'nother ball of wax.

More creationist binary thinking on display here.

Yes, if: a cell becomes photosensitive through a copying error; the cell is hooked by nerves to a brain; and, the brain by chance directs useful behavior based on the information from the cell, then you have something. Needing all those things is why it's irreducibly complex. You could have a photosensitive cell on your elbow right now. It wouldn't change a thing, because your brain isn't wired to process input from your elbow visually. If the evolutionary view is true we should have eyes on the back of our heads or in other places.

[GrandizerII]

I'd suggest you look up "scaffolding". No mutation exists in a vacuum. Their environment is not only the outer world, but the genetic environment the mutations arise in. A light-sensitive cell arises in a brainless animal? You might have a point. It arises in an animal which has a brain? The possibility of processing exists. If it can and does, then you've got a whole 'nother ball of wax.

More creationist binary thinking on display here.

Yes, if: a cell becomes photosensitive through a copying error; the cell is hooked by nerves to a brain; and, the brain by chance directs useful behavior based on the information from the cell, then you have something. Needing all those things is why it's irreducibly complex. You could have a photosensitive cell on your elbow right now. It wouldn't change a thing, because your brain isn't wired to process input from your elbow visually. If the evolutionary view is true we should have eyes on the back of our heads or in other places.

Not "should", but "could have had". Lots of variations are possible given evolution but not all become actual.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

even a poorly performing eye organ is better (from a survival aspect) than not having one at all

Not necessarily. People always talk about a photosensitive cell. By itself, it's no better than nothing at all.

If it gives information to the animal that other similar animals don't get wouldn't that be an advantage?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, if: a cell becomes photosensitive through a copying error; the cell is hooked by nerves to a brain; and, the brain by chance directs useful behavior based on the information from the cell, then you have something.

Moot point, since photosensitivity both predates and concurrently exists with nervous systems, let alone cnas.  

Needing all those things is why it's irreducibly complex.

Then it's not irreducably complex, even by that myopic and poorly informed definition.  Photosentive cells and compounds were not and still do not need to be connected to anything even remotely resembling a cna to provide functional benefits.

You could have a photosensitive cell on your elbow right now. It wouldn't change a thing, because your brain isn't wired to process input from your elbow visually. If the evolutionary view is true we should have eyes on the back of our heads or in other places.

-and yet the photosensitive cells and compounds of plants are all over their "elbows", still not connected to a brain....and still work. Whenever a nutter says "if evolutionary theory were true", what follows is invariably some example of said nutter not knowing a fucking thing about evolutionary theory.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The question isn't always whether there is or is not a developmental path for a feature; but rather, whether or not it is possible to overcome the physical constraints to get there within the time it supposedly took to develop. It doesn't seem like anyone really knows how many fitness-enhancing mutations must happen and if that number can be attained by chance alone.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an interesting question I guess, how long does it take for something to develop.  I wonder how long it takes cells made of chemically photosensitive compounds to develop photoreactive cellular apparatus or response?  

My guess is zero generations.............

Whereas a human eye apparently (not supposedly, lol) took a few billion years worth of generations, much longer than other eyes, and much..much longer than photoreceptive or photoreactive cellular automata.

[downbeatplumb]

The question isn't always whether there is or is not a developmental path for a feature; but rather, whether or not it is possible to overcome the physical constraints to get there within the time it supposedly took to develop. It doesn't seem like anyone really knows how many fitness-enhancing mutations must happen and if that number can be attained by chance alone.

But mutations do not have to happen in isolation, one after the other, there are many different mutations in the entire population and any could help the development of whatever directly or indirectly and come together as the population breeds. There are currently 7,000,000,000 humans mutating and breeding and apparently evolution has sped up as a result. our brains have shrunk rather alarmingly for one thing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ution.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-...-shrinking