The "Complexity of the Eye", for stupid creationists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"How did the eye suddenly appear?"

Well, moron, "suddenly" doesn't apply.

530-million-year-old fossil has look of world's oldest eye, study suggests

Date: December 7, 2017

Source: University of Edinburgh

Summary: A 530-million-year-old fossil contains what could be the oldest eye ever discovered, a study reveals.

A 530-million-year-old fossil contains what could be the oldest eye ever discovered, a study reveals.

The remains of an extinct sea creature include an early form of the eye seen in many of today's animals, including crabs, bees and dragonflies, researchers say.

Scientists made the finding while examining the well-preserved fossil of a hard-shelled species -- called a trilobite. These ancestors of spiders and crabs lived in coastal waters during the Palaeozoic era, between 541-251 million years ago.

They found the ancient creature had a primitive form of compound eye -- an optical organ that consists of arrays of tiny visual cells, called ommatidia, similar to those of present-day bees.

The team, which included a researcher from the University of Edinburgh, say their findings suggest that compound eyes have changed little over 500 million years.

The right eye of the fossil -- which was unearthed in Estonia -- was partly worn away, giving researchers a clear view inside the organ. This revealed details of the eye's structure and function, and how it differs from modern compound eyes.
The species had poor vision compared with many animals today, but it could identify predators and obstacles in its path, researchers say.

Its eye consists of approximately 100 ommatidia, which are situated relatively far apart compared to contemporary compounds eyes, the team says.

Unlike modern compound eyes, the fossil's eye does not have a lens. This is likely because the primitive species -- called Schmidtiellus reetae -- lacked parts of the shell needed for lens formation, the team says.

Continues...

[Chad32]

Usually when I hear someone argue about the complexity of the eye, they usually bring up a quote mine from Darwin, talking about how he didn't know how the complex eye formed, but it leaves out another part of the page which kind of invalidates their quote mine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Usually when I hear someone argue about the complexity of the eye, they usually bring up a quote mine from Darwin, talking about how he didn't know how the complex eye formed, but it leaves out another part of the page which kind of invalidates their quote mine.

Yep, quote mining to the max. 

[Aegon]

Gawdzilla use your God-given eyes and just LOOK AROUND YOU! Have you seen -- MOUNTAINS!? Explain that one evolution.

[The Valkyrie]

Usually when I hear someone argue about the complexity of the eye, they usually bring up a quote mine from Darwin, talking about how he didn't know how the complex eye formed, but it leaves out another part of the page which kind of invalidates their quote mine.

That quote mine usually crops up once or twice a day on a debate group I belong to on FB.

Some seem genuinely surprised when I tell them to look at the entire quote.

Of course, that's an indicator that they just parrot what they read from others instead of doing their own research.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla use your God-given eyes and just LOOK AROUND YOU! Have you seen -- MOUNTAINS!? Explain that one evolution.

Just Rockies, Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Kilimanjaro, Mt. Etna, etc., no mountains that God made, sadly.

[ignoramus]

Stupid creationists?

Isn't that a little convoluted?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Stupid creationists?

Isn't that a little convoluted?

Sadly, no. I have relatives who are quite smart but totally invested in creationism. They suffer from homey schooling so they discuss these things with one foot in a bucket, but they refuse to see their limitations. Sad.

[Rev. Rye]

Usually when I hear someone argue about the complexity of the eye, they usually bring up a quote mine from Darwin, talking about how he didn't know how the complex eye formed, but it leaves out another part of the page which kind of invalidates their quote mine.

I can remember an episode of the Atheist Experience where a caller came in to point out that specific quote and, when they got to "absurd to the highest degree", the hosts just said: "What comes next?" Eventually, they got to the point where he explained it, and then he asked: what did it mean? He showed zero reading comprehension. 







Darwin's writing style is very heavy on shit like this: explain the objections, admit they may have a point, and then immediately explain why the objection does not hold up to much scrutiny.

[Anomalocaris]

An empirical computer simulation suggests from a single light sensitive cell on the exterior of multicellular animal, a sophisticated camera eye similar to the human eye can evolve in half a million generations.  At 2 year per generation typical of small multi-cellular animals, that’s just 1 million years.

Genetic evidence suggest the genes responsible for underlying light sensitive pigment that facilitates essentially all vision and light sensitivity in animals - rhodopsin - is 2 billion years old.

Any questions?

As it happens, not only do we see both camera eye like ours, and compound eye similar to insect and crab’s having each evolved at least once, there happen to be an entirely new lineage of eye, seemly entirely separate from the compound and the camera eye, that is being evolved as we speak.   This is the external shell eye of the rimicaris exoculata shrimp.   This shrimp has the genes for the normal compound eye found in typical shrimps.  In juvenile stage the compound eye is there.  In adulthood, the compound eye is reabsorbed. But a truly remarkable adaptation occurs. An entirely unique sheet of light sensitive cells grows over the shell on the shrmp’s back.  In effect the shrimp transforms its back into the retina of a new inside out eye.