Creationists (YEC) - Do you REALLY want to know how the Eye evolved?

Question

New study was just published:

Lamb TD, Collin SP, Pugh EN Jr. (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nat Rev Neurosci 8(12):960-76.

Here's a great review:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php#more

Go ahead, read it if you've got a few minutes. "How could something so complex as the Eye evolve?" Well there you go. Are you finally going to stop with the nonsense questions?

tammi-

That is a REVIEW of the study, not the study itself. The study is at the citation I listed first, the website is more or less explaining it from an academics point of view to the layman.

Answer 1

I am not a "Creationist" and I don't pretend to know a whole lot about evolution...it wasn't the field I decided to study. I think it is a good theory, but the fact that I don't have a lot of knowledge about it brings up questions to me. I didn't read the whole article, I kind of scanned it. And I did have one question that came out of my scanning (not saying this disproves anything...I just have a question about it).

The article says this: "The message is that, once again, all the heavy lifting, the evolution of a muscled eyeball with a lens and retinal circuitry, was accomplished early, between 550 and 500 million years ago."

I know 50 million years is a long time...but it seems to suggest that the eye evolved very quickly over a short amount of time and has basically done very little since then. As I understand this...this is common in evolution with the "Cambrian Explosion" theory. It seems like a lot of stuff evolved quickly...and then evolution has slowed down. That is just something I don't understand. What caused it to speed up? What caused it to slow down again? Like I said...just questions, not trying to disprove everything.


EDIT: I forgot the point to all of that. It is not that I don't "believe" in evolution. I just don't accept it as 100% fact. I think it is the best thing we have to go with right now...but I know it will probably change in the future.

Answer 2

The next thing you'll tell me is that T-rex muscle tissue, and red blood cells can survive intact in bones for 65 million years. Or that fossilized man made foot prints along side dinosaur foot prints from different places by different people from all over the earth are all fake. Sorry, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism.

Answer 3

Why is it "nonsense" to ask questions??

And Eleventy - Secular scientists have not cornered the market on understanding everything either.... it's rather insulting to say that scientists who study the theory of a young earth simply skip over these discoveries. They don't. They have the same evidence to examine and study, and like evolution scientists, they develop theories based on their study.

Searcher has it right - until either theory proves 100% right, there should ALWAYS be questions from every direction. To assume that any 'theory' is fact is the height of arrogance. No one can say with certainty what happened 500 million years ago, or 50 million years, or 5 million years or even 50,000 years ago, because they weren't there. They can only examine the same evidence available to everyone and theorize on it's origin.

Answer 4

The evolution of the eye through investigation of comparative morphology has been well known for some time now, but this is a really great review and update of knowledge. Likewise molecular geneticists are now tracing the evolution of the eye through genetic analysis; we'll soon have a complete history of just what transcription errors at what points in history led to what adaptive changes in morphology.

Answer 5

Have you actually read it? It's all a bit fanciful.
An "explanation" like this doesn't explain anything. It might work as manufacturing instructions, but does not come close to explaining the "evolution" of the eye. Use some critical thinking.


The neural plate is the starting point for the development of the vertebrate eye cup. b | The neural plate folds upwards and inwards. c | The optic grooves evaginate. d | The lips of the neural folds approach each other and the optic vesicles bulge outwards. e | After the lips have sealed the neural tube is pinched off. At this stage the forebrain grows upwards and the optic vesicles continue to balloon outwards: they contact the surface ectoderm and induce the lens placode. f | The optic vesicle now invaginates, so that the future retina is apposed to the future retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), and the ventricular space that was between them disappears. Developing retinal ganglion cells send axons out across the retinal surface. The surface ectoderm at the lens placode begins to form the lens pit. This section is midline in the right eye, through the choroid fissure, so only the upper region of the retina and the RPE are visible. g | The eye cup grows circumferentially, eventually sealing over the choroidal fissure and enclosing the axons of the optic nerve (as well as the hyaloid/ retinal vessels; not shown). The ectodermal tissue continues to differentiate and eventually forms the lens.

Answer 6

to the moron ridiculing the presence of the mermaid:

"(The mermaid to represent all gnathostomes, including fishes and tetrapods, is a cute touch, but let me assure you that this paper does not endorse the existence of mermaids or other mythical chimeras.)"

Can't you people read?

Answer 7

I'm guessing a lot of these kinds of responses will come up:

"Nope. Bible / God / Jesus / my faith tells me this is bullhonky."

Answer 8

That wont stop them from using that argument. They still use "irreducible complexity" as an argument when it has been thoroughly debunked for over a year and a half now.

Answer 9

Learning often leads to understanding, and understanding typically becomes accptance.... Some of them just like to avoid the whole process.

Answer 10

Great link. Thanks.
You really need to WANT to believe in a magical deity to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.