Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Where do eyes come from?

arroba Email

Richard Dawkins has often expressed faith in the ease of evolving eyes. It shows what strong faith he has in the power of RM and NS. Although he was completely wrong about this, he still has immovable faith in the power of Darwinian evolution. This is because his speculations rather than being based on evidence, simply depend on his very fruitful imagination.

Dawkins, Richard, Where d’you get those peepers?
Vol. 8, New Statesman & Society, 06-16-1995, pp 29.

“Serviceable image-forming eyes have evolved between 40 and 60 times, independently from scratch, in many different invertebrate groups. Among these 40-plus independent evolutions, at least nine distinct design principles have been discovered, including pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera-lens eyes, curved-reflector (“satellite dish”) eyes, and several kinds of compound eyes.”

David Berlinski’s response to Richard Dawkins on the eye.

Here is a paper that challenges the idea that eyes arose gradually.

As a result of recent findings, all of the evolution of the eye is pushed into the Precambrian where there are no data to confirm or deny the speculations.

From another source.

“The most impressive previously thought convergence in the evolution of the three image-forming eyes doesn’t exist in the eyes themselves but in the neural nets immediately behind the eye. All three eye types have a cross-linked network of amacrine and horizontal cells in order to sharpen their perceived images using a phenomenon called lateral inhibition. It now appears that the image-sharping network of amacrine and horizontal cells did not polyphyletically recur but rather was in place in the Urbilateria, the last common ancestor of all bilaterially symmetric animals. Arendt et al. did exactly the right thing in attempting to understand the evolution of any complex phenomenon. They looked at the vision system in a presumably primitive, incipient system, that of a polychaete, Platynereis dumerilii. Because polychaetes and vertebrates are evolutionarily far apart, they argue that any feature shared between them must result as feature of their common evolutionary heritage. Doing this, by itself, doesn’t prove that the LCA indeed was the true progenitor to both forms of eyes, ciliary (rods & cones) and rhabdomeric arthropod ommatedial), but when they looked in detail at the larval and adult eye forms of Pl\atynereis, they not only found both forms of eyes present, but also the vertebrate-type opsin (the bleachable protein that is the photon receptor) in the invertebrate’s brain. This and other information is more than enough to strongly suggest that the complex image-processing network that exists behind the retinal/rabdomeric surfaces in all three eye types, had only one origin in the history of the Metazoa and is very ancient.”

The understanding of this, as I expect you actually know, is not found in the natural world, being irrational as you have pointed out...who is it that has blinded the MINDS of those who are callous in heart? Thank you for your reply - as usual, always informative. alan
I agree with your diagnosis Alan: My diagnosis: HYPERACTIVE IMAGINATION SYNDROME. In fact from the crushing evidence coming in from genetics, molecular analysis of proteins, coupled with the fossil record, it seems that the imagination of evolutionary scientists is given more weight in biology than the evidence has now been given. And as you point out it seems to border on some type of pathological disorder. I found the following in "Good News" that may be of interest: Darwin's mother died tragically when he was 8 years old, and he followed the loose and freethinking ways of his father and deceased grandfather. He (Darwin) wrote in his autobiography, "I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing "deliberate falsehoods", and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement".... " He often told lies about seeing rare birds" concurs Janet Browne. Once he invented an elaborate story designed to show how fond he was of telling the truth, It was a boys way of manipulating the world. "The lies were not connected to any sense of shame...More accurately, they mirrored a search for attention. He wanted to be admired...Lies-and the thrill derived from lies-were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history" (Charles Darwin: Voyaging, pp. 13-14) What is a deep profound mystery, that I have a very hard time understanding, is why is this one mans pathology, for inventing cunningly devised fables, persisting in science, and indeed, defies being brought to the justice of overwhelming evidence now present in science? bornagain77
Yesterday I think I figured it out and this verifies it - If ID'ers and Creationists are said to be superstitious, darwinist are certainly deficient in some type of medication as having a type of ADHD - My diagnosis: HYPERACTIVE IMAGINATION SYNDROME. Perhaps Dawkins only real problem is needing a drug to help him pay attention to relieve him of his ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVE DISORDER. Maybe he just didn't evolve the needed chemical pathway for rationality. thank you all very much... alan
Urbilateria — more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?
Umm, as long as you keep telic processes out of the mix, imagination is perfectly viable. But anyway- what else could it have been if not Urbilateria? There, it is not imagination. Rather it is logic- 1-we know these features evolved (eyes and bilateral symmetry) 2-we know they were not present in the first population(s) 3- therefore there had to be something and we call it Urbilateria. :) :) :) (Cue Curly- n'yuck n'yuck n'yuck- wise guy ey!) Joseph
Dembski you my dog for-eva! :) Thanks for keep'n it real all dem years. And don't let nobody try and talk you down! I want to know where is the fossil record of the half-man-half-fish that didn't quite make it 2008. Or even the half man half lizard would be perfectly adequate. A half dog half cat would be nice as well. Evolution is neat don’t you think? Frost122585
Urbilateria -- more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these? William Dembski
Not only is it a huge stretch for mutations to make the beginnings of an eye, but the organism's brain has to work with it in a beneficial way. In a sense, it has to evolve simultaneously with the eye to be able to recognize the new information it's receiving form it (i.e. "Oh, this new seeing organ tells me a predator is that way, so I should go this way"). Otherwise, it is completely worthless. I consider this and can't belief Dawkins calls himself a "rational" individual. Poor man... Berceuse
agreed vrf, I think in their line of thinking "if other animals have eyes also, thats proof it evolved" gore
I always thought that the convergent "evolution" of eyes supported an ID model more than NDE. There is direction, purpose and intelligence when several different evolutionary branches end up at the same place. Makes sense they pushed it back to pre-fossil times. The accidental coicidences are just too much to believe, so we have to go back to the good ol' reliable common ancestor. Everything is inherited. The unfindable common ancestor seems a lot like a magic creature to me. vrf
Maybe Dawkins should tell a blind person how easy eyesight is to stumble upon. If an eye was so simple to build we would have no problem building one. These guys have willingly abandoned science in favor of atheistic storytelling - and the stories are pretty bad. I just hope history chastises them accordingly. shaner74
The following is my take on the same subject: So, What is Responsible for our eyes/ vision system? Joseph

Leave a Reply