Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?
Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.
Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.
All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules⦠all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.
Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.
I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.
It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.
There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.
Explain?
Darwin actually refuted this in the Origin of Species. He essentially surveyed all existing animals with eyes, and strung a hypothetical progression of the evolution of eyes from there. From basic light spots to our own complex eyes.
A pair of Swedish scientists made a mathematical model on how long it would take to evolve from one to the other. It would only take (with conservative estimates) about 400,000 years.
I'm gonna guess and say you have no idea how evolution works or what the theory says. I suggest a visit to your local library to pick some of the books written by biologists on the subject.
I suggest you read the article.
Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.
But, they aren't.
Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.
This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.
That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.
I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.