Evolution Intelligent Design

Scallops’ 200 eyes “even more complex” than realized

Spread the love

The 200 eyes’ complexity is still being unveiled, we are told:

For many years, the physics and optics of the scallop eye posed a perplexing problem. “The main retina in the eye gets almost completely unfocused light because it’s too close to the mirror,” says Dan Speiser, a vision scientist at the University of South Carolina and the senior author of the new study. In other words, any image on the proximal retina would be blurry and out of focus. “That just seems so unreasonable to me,” Speiser says.

The new study sheds some light on this mystery. The researchers found that the scallop pupils are able to open and contract, though their pupillary responses aren’t as quick as our own. A scallop pupil’s diameter changes by about 50 percent at most, and the dilation or contraction can take several minutes. Their eyes don’t have irises like our eyes do, and instead, the cells in the cornea change shape by going from thin and flat to tall and long. These contractions can change the curvature of the cornea itself, opening the possibility that the scallop eye might change shape and respond to light in a way that makes it possible to form crisper images on the proximal retina. Viviane Callier, “What Scallops’ Many Eyes Can Teach Us About the Evolution of Vision” at Smithsonian Magazine

Take a deep breath and keep repeating “It all just happens randomly somehow. The same random way buildings get built and books get written.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Science Mag: Scallop’s Eye “Fine-Tuned For Image Formation” (2017)

6 Replies to “Scallops’ 200 eyes “even more complex” than realized

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    Take a deep breath and keep repeating “It all just happens randomly somehow.

    Said no scientist ever.

    It is amazing to see scallops swimming. When a starfish gets near it claps it’s valves together and jets through the water. And, speaking from experience, there is nothing tastier than eating a scallop raw right out of the ocean.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Right. Evolutionary scientists say “It all just happened, somehow”. They like to pretend that the fact that natural selection is non-random in a most trivial manner actually makes all the difference in the world. And how is natural selection “non-random”? Not every variant has the same chance of being eliminated. It is still all contingent serendipity. Stephen Gould recognized that, which was why he said what he did about replaying the tape of life.

  3. 3
    Belfast says:

    Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms;
    Julian Huxley.
    Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised. Jacques Monod.

  4. 4
    Stephen Sparrow says:

    There’s a flaw in that concept of mutation occurring randomly in all directions – what makes it pause or stop – disembark from the train. Oh, that’s right – a nice place to stop.
    Well when cancer starts metastasizing it doesn’t stop unless with an intervention – medical or in nature when the organism itself “chooses”. Your argument is a refutation of Darwinism since the imagined mutation would expand in every direction leaving no possibility of a change to itself. The first living cell would be the last notwithstanding that the cell itself would somehow have to bring itself into being.
    As you well know, nothing finite can be “responsible” for it’s own existence.
    Darwin was a systemist but his philosophy disintegrated when he tried to account for different organisms but arrogance kept him going and the God hating scientists of the day cheered him on.

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Brian said no scientist ever said that things happened randomly, I merely provided two quotes from scientists who did.
    There was no argument, just two quotes.
    Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

  6. 6
    Truthfreedom says:


Leave a Reply