The Missing Link and the Irreducible Complexity of the Eye

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

---

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.

Given the fact that evolution works in populations, based on the intermingling of genetic material through sex, it's obvious that even when you're working on chance alone, you must compute the odds in parallel, rather than serially. The larger the population, the more likely the mutations are, and the larger the pool they have in which they may spread -- and more importantly, interact.

Also, when you consider that the time that evolution has had on Earth is now suspected to be upwards of three billion years, working on enormous numbers of "dice rolls", it doesn't strike me as "peculiar" that complex life might arise.

Is it likely? Your guess is as good as mine. But we're certain that it has happened in at least one instance.

---

WELL DUH.

So you're just assuming that the information would automatically lead to advantageous behavior?

When early (read: before procreation) death culls the stupid, sure.

[Amarok]

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.

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.

---

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.

Given the fact that evolution works in populations, based on the intermingling of genetic material through sex, it's obvious that even when you're working on chance alone, you must compute the odds in parallel, rather than serially. The larger the population, the more likely the mutations are, and the larger the pool they have in which they may spread -- and more importantly, interact.

Also, when you consider that the time that evolution has had on Earth is now suspected to be upwards of three billion years, working on enormous numbers of "dice rolls", it doesn't strike me as "peculiar" that complex life might arise.

Is it likely? Your guess is as good as mine. But we're certain that it has happened in at least one instance.

---

So you're just assuming that the information would automatically lead to advantageous behavior?

When early (read: before procreation) death culls the stupid, sure.

Alpha seems incapable of understanding the concept of natural selection .Which by the way yup stupid creatures tend to die .Intelligence or some other positive adaptation  tends to be a boon when everything wants to eat you. And you live on a planet that tends to kill things. 

Second there is the fact that it does have to be immediately advantageous . Hell even detrimental stuff sticks around as long as it's not immediately fatal. Then there are neutral mutations .

[The Grand Nudger]

If I were a cretinist, I don't think I'd wonder much about the plausibility(?) of photoresponses evolutionary development.....I'd wonder more at the fact that photoresponse was literally baked in at a point well -before- biological evolution.  The very first moment that the very first life arose, at least one of the means by which photoresponse is and was achieved already existed.  Photoresponse predates cells.....

[GUBU]

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.

For any creature which spends an appreciable amount of time above ground, the ability to sense and interpret light is an advantage. So yeah, photosensitive cells are better than nothing at all.

---

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.

---

Given the fact that evolution works in populations, based on the intermingling of genetic material through sex, it's obvious that even when you're working on chance alone, you must compute the odds in parallel, rather than serially. The larger the population, the more likely the mutations are, and the larger the pool they have in which they may spread -- and more importantly, interact.

Also, when you consider that the time that evolution has had on Earth is now suspected to be upwards of three billion years, working on enormous numbers of "dice rolls", it doesn't strike me as "peculiar" that complex life might arise.

Is it likely? Your guess is as good as mine. But we're certain that it has happened in at least one instance.

---

When early (read: before procreation) death culls the stupid, sure.

Alpha seems incapable of understanding the concept of natural selection .Which by the way yup stupid creatures tend to die .Intelligence or some other positive adaptation  tends to be a boon when everything wants to eat you. And you live on a planet that tends to kill things. 

Second there is the fact that it does have to be immediately advantageous . Hell even detrimental stuff sticks around as long as it's not immediately fatal. Then there are neutral mutations .

What most creatards don't get, including both Wooters and Alpha Male, is that while whether individual mutations are beneficial or not may be up to chance, whether a mutation propogates through a species or not is most definitely not. If an animal has a mutation that allows it to survive better in its environment, or allows it to adapt better to a changing environment then it has a better opportunity to survive and propogate passing the mutation on to its progeny. Natural selection due to environment ensures that evolution is non-random.

[vorlon13]

Always found it curious the more conservative realms of Christianity have such a rough time understanding evolution, especially in regards as to how their arguments against it continually evolve . . .


Why doesn't their God inspire in them the mature, fully thought out, comprehensive and ultimately universally convincing irrefutable case in the first place?   As it is, by the looks of things, such a thing is thousands, if not millions of years in the future.

[Cyberman]

It's true, people are always talking about photosensitive cells. I talk about literally nothing else.

"Can I have a large photosensitive cell meal, please? And a coke."

[vorlon13]

silver nitrate burger with side of cadmium sulfide fries ?

[Cyberman]

That's just a regular Big Mac.

[vorlon13]

don't forget the selenium sauce !!

[downbeatplumb]

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

I guess that rules out the Tomorrow People. Our future is Idiocracy. Sounds about right.

What do you mean "future" trump was elected, idiocracy would be a utopia by comparison.