Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye

[Seymour Flops]

First of all, I give credit to the Fort Fun Indiana , the poster who brought the video below to my attention. I hope he won't take my dissection of it personally.

Watch first, and then read the rest.



Ok, the start of the problem comes right at the start of the video. He starts with "an ancestor who didn't really have an eye uh-tall, but a single simple sheet of light sensitive cells."

How did the sheet of light sensitive cells appear? How did the first light sensitive cell evolve? He makes a huge leap with no explanation. Then he shows the "sheet of cells" represented by a translucent covering of a hole in a board that he calls a "screen." Behind the screen? A television camera, hooked to a monitor! Yeah, that's so simple!

All that did not evolve in one step, but he represents that as the first step in evolving an eye.

I suppose the television camera and monitor represent the neural pathway that transmit the light signal and the part of the brain that interprets it as light. How did those evolve before the light sensitive sheet of cells? It didn't, they had to have evolved at the same time.

So then he explains that "this animal" (it is hypothetical, there is no animal that he can say evolved sight this way), can at least tell the difference between light and dark And? He fails to explain how that leads to increased survival and reproduction.

Then he says, "The next stage in eee-volution would be to have. a shallow. cup." (I don't know why he talks like that. Maybe he realizes how absurd it sounds) How is that "the next stage?" Literally one step between a flat "sheet" and a shallow cup? This is fantasy.

Ok, that is the first minute and fifteen seconds of more than fourteen minutes. I'm not going to go over all of it. Anyone with an open mind can watch the rest and judge for themselves.

As a way to explain to children the bare bones of Darwin, it could serve, I suppose. Probably better as a pre-naptime sleep aid, though. But as a way to convince adults with critical thinking skills of anything, it is pretty horrible.

 

[Hollie]

This is the same spam you dumped into another thread.

 

[alang1216]

So then he explains that "this animal" (it is hypothetical, there is no animal that he can say evolved sight this way), can at least tell the difference between light and dark And? He fails to explain how that leads to increased survival and reproduction.

It is not hypothetical, there are real microbes that can sense light. They use it in the oceans to determine night from day and, as I recall, float to the surface at night to feed and dive during the day to avoid predators. They don't see an image but what they can see is critical to their survival.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is not hypothetical, there are real microbes that can sense light. They use it in the oceans to determine night from day and, as I recall, float to the surface at night to feed and dive during the day to avoid predators. They don't see an image but what they can see is critical to their survival.

Sure, there's no question that many many organisms sense light, from microbes that sense light to the eagle eyed birds of prey. My issue is that light sensitivity is the start point in the evolution of the eye, according to Dawkins.

This is common in Darwinian thought, that we must assume such huge head starts for the process. For example, starting with DNA appearing with no explanation.

 

[alang1216]

Sure, there's no question that many many organisms sense light, from microbes that sense light to the eagle eyed birds of prey. My issue is that light sensitivity is the start point in the evolution of the eye, according to Dawkins.

and he was right.

This is common in Darwinian thought, that we must assume such huge head starts for the process. For example, starting with DNA appearing with no explanation.

DNA evolved like everything else. A common strawman argument for creationists is that DNA is a necessary precursor for life. It is not and probably took hundreds of millions of years to evolve from simpler molecules.

 

[Hollie]

Sure, there's no question that many many organisms sense light, from microbes that sense light to the eagle eyed birds of prey. My issue is that light sensitivity is the start point in the evolution of the eye, according to Dawkins.

This is common in Darwinian thought, that we must assume such huge head starts for the process. For example, starting with DNA appearing with no explanation.

Light sensitivity is not the start point in the evolution of the eye.

“The eye is too complex to have evolved” is a favorite of the creationer ministries.

CB301: Eye complexity

1. Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

As is the usual case, those shilling for the fundamentalist / creationer ministries have no facts to present to challenge the evidence for biological evolution.

It’s comical that we are told there is something the creationer ministries call “design theory” but the creationers are never able to identify what that means.

 

[Seymour Flops]

and he was right.

That's absurd. Light sensitivity itself would have had to evolved.

DNA evolved like everything else. A common strawman argument for creationists is that DNA is a necessary precursor for life. It is not and probably took hundreds of millions of years to evolve from simpler molecules.

How did DNA itself evolve? That's a new one as far as I know.

Any links to that research or are you just making it up as you go?

 

[abu afak]

That's absurd. Light sensitivity itself would have had to evolved.

How did DNA itself Evolve? That's a New one as far as I know.

Any links to that research or are you just making it up as you go?

Every fact is 'new to you.'
Wiki : Abiogenesis

[...]The RNA world​

The RNA world hypothesis describes an early Earth with self-replicating and catalytic RNA but no DNA or proteins.[82] It is widely accepted that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world,[17][83][84] although RNA-based life may not have been the first to exist.[18][19]

RNA is central to the translation process; that small RNAs can catalyze all of the chemical groups and information transfers required for life;[19][85] that RNA both expresses and maintains genetic information in modern organisms; and that the chemical components of RNA are easily synthesized under the conditions that approximated the early Earth. The structure of the ribozyme has been called the "smoking gun", with a central core of RNA and no amino acid side chains within 18 Å of the active site that catalyzes peptide bond formation.[18][86]

The concept of the RNA world was first proposed in 1962 by Alexander Rich,[87] and the term was coined by Walter Gilbert in 1986.[19][88] There were initial difficulties in the explanation of the abiotic synthesis of the nucleotides cytosine and uracil.[89] Subsequent research has shown possible routes of synthesis; for example, formamide produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals.[90][91]

RNA replicase can function as both code and catalyst for further RNA replication. Jack Szostak has shown that certain catalytic RNAs can join smaller RNA sequences together, creating the potential for self-replication. The RNA replication systems, which include two ribozymes that catalyze each other's synthesis, showed a doubling time of the product of about one hour, and were subject to natural selection under the conditions that existed in the experiment.[92][93][18] If such conditions were present on early Earth, then Darwinian natural selection would favor the proliferation of such autocatalytic sets, to which further functionalities could be added.[94][95][96]

Stan Palasek suggested that self-assembly of ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[97] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[98] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[99][100] In 2021, it was reported that a preliminary form of tRNA could have been such a replicator molecule.[101][102]
[...........]
[...........]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Every fact is 'new to you.'
Wiki : Abiogenesis

[...]The RNA world​

The RNA world hypothesis describes an early Earth with self-replicating and catalytic RNA but no DNA or proteins.[82] It is widely accepted that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world,[17][83][84] although RNA-based life may not have been the first to exist.[18][19]

RNA is central to the translation process; that small RNAs can catalyze all of the chemical groups and information transfers required for life;[19][85] that RNA both expresses and maintains genetic information in modern organisms; and that the chemical components of RNA are easily synthesized under the conditions that approximated the early Earth. The structure of the ribozyme has been called the "smoking gun", with a central core of RNA and no amino acid side chains within 18 Å of the active site that catalyzes peptide bond formation.[18][86]

The concept of the RNA world was first proposed in 1962 by Alexander Rich,[87] and the term was coined by Walter Gilbert in 1986.[19][88] There were initial difficulties in the explanation of the abiotic synthesis of the nucleotides cytosine and uracil.[89] Subsequent research has shown possible routes of synthesis; for example, formamide produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals.[90][91]

RNA replicase can function as both code and catalyst for further RNA replication. Jack Szostak has shown that certain catalytic RNAs can join smaller RNA sequences together, creating the potential for self-replication. The RNA replication systems, which include two ribozymes that catalyze each other's synthesis, showed a doubling time of the product of about one hour, and were subject to natural selection under the conditions that existed in the experiment.[92][93][18] If such conditions were present on early Earth, then Darwinian natural selection would favor the proliferation of such autocatalytic sets, to which further functionalities could be added.[94][95][96]

Stan Palasek suggested that self-assembly of ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[97] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[98] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[99][100] In 2021, it was reported that a preliminary form of tRNA could have been such a replicator molecule.[101][102]
[...........]
[...........]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

cut-and-paste from wiki is completely unimpressive.

Especially that one.

 

[abu afak]

cut-and-paste from wiki is completely unimpressive.

Especially that one.

It's responsive to your query.
Basically you TROLL my replies you can't handle of late with...

um,
uh hu.
hmmm
etc

But the fact is you NEVER have any reply to my on topic replies which answer or shatter yours.
You asked about pre-DNA evolution, I posted it.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's responsive to your query.
Basically you TROLL my replies you can't handle of late with...

um,
uh hu.
hmmm
etc

But the fact is you NEVER have any reply to my on topic replies which answer or shatter yours.
You asked about pre-DNA evolution, I posted it.
`

Wut?

 

[abu afak]

Wut?

That's your thread you're ruining by Trolling me.
You did say you were not going to respond to me any more, then lied and said you didn't say it.
But before and after those contradictory posts you've been Effectively not responding by posting ..

Um
huh
hmmm
Wut
uh huh
etc.

You risk destroying your own threads, but I guess you feel it's better than Losing them to my refutations by Trolling them away.
But I'm not going away.
You keep trolling me, you're going to see them posted/quoted in sequence by me.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's your thread you're ruining by Trolling me.
You did say you were not going to respond to me any more, then lied and said you didn't say it.
But before and after those contradictory posts you've been Effectively not responding by posting ..

Um
huh
hmmm
Wut
uh huh
etc.

You risk destroying your own threads, but I guess you feel it's better than Losing them to my refutations by Trolling them away.
But I'm not going away.
You keep trolling me, you're going to see them posted/quoted in sequence by me.

`

Am I responding to you or not?

 

[abu afak]

Am I responding to you or not?

You did say you were not going to respond to me any more, then Lied and said you didn't say it.
But before and after those contradictory posts you've been
Effectively Not responding by posting ..

Um
huh
hmmm
Wut
uh huh
etc.
`
IOW, TROLLING.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You did say you were not going to respond to me any more, then Lied and said you didn't say it.
But before and after those contradictory posts you've been
Effectively Not responding by posting ..

Um
huh
hmmm
Wut
uh huh
etc.
`
IOW, TROLLING.

Sounds like I kept my word then, eh?

 

[abu afak]

Sounds like I kept my word then, eh?

Which word?
You contradicted yourself/Lied.
Now you are trolling me IAC.
But I sympathize, because you have NO choice/No answers to the simplest challenges to Your empty claims.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Which word?
You contradicted yourself/Lied.
Now you are trolling me IAC.
But I sympathize, because you have NO choice/No answers to the simplest challenges to Your empty claims.

`

Oh, shoot! I gotta go do some stuff.

Stand by, though. I'll be right back.

 

[alang1216]

That's absurd. Light sensitivity itself would have had to evolved.

Hardly absurd. Light sensitivity evolved because it was so advantageous as was better vision in general

How did DNA itself evolve? That's a new one as far as I know.

Any links to that research or are you just making it up as you go?

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries​

Where did DNA come from?​

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hardly absurd. Light sensitivity evolved because it was so advantageous as was better vision in general

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries​

Where did DNA come from?​

I'd prefer not to argue link vs. link.

Too easy for someone to post links they never read themselves.

Put it in your own words and I'll take a look - at your words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First of all, I give credit to the Fort Fun Indiana , the poster who brought the video below to my attention. I hope he won't take my dissection of it personally.

Watch first, and then read the rest.



Ok, the start of the problem comes right at the start of the video. He starts with "an ancestor who didn't really have an eye uh-tall, but a single simple sheet of light sensitive cells."

How did the sheet of light sensitive cells appear? How did the first light sensitive cell evolve? He makes a huge leap with no explanation. Then he shows the "sheet of cells" represented by a translucent covering of a hole in a board that he calls a "screen." Behind the screen? A television camera, hooked to a monitor! Yeah, that's so simple!

All that did not evolve in one step, but he represents that as the first step in evolving an eye.

I suppose the television camera and monitor represent the neural pathway that transmit the light signal and the part of the brain that interprets it as light. How did those evolve before the light sensitive sheet of cells? It didn't, they had to have evolved at the same time.

So then he explains that "this animal" (it is hypothetical, there is no animal that he can say evolved sight this way), can at least tell the difference between light and dark And? He fails to explain how that leads to increased survival and reproduction.

Then he says, "The next stage in eee-volution would be to have. a shallow. cup." (I don't know why he talks like that. Maybe he realizes how absurd it sounds) How is that "the next stage?" Literally one step between a flat "sheet" and a shallow cup? This is fantasy.

Ok, that is the first minute and fifteen seconds of more than fourteen minutes. I'm not going to go over all of it. Anyone with an open mind can watch the rest and judge for themselves.

As a way to explain to children the bare bones of Darwin, it could serve, I suppose. Probably better as a pre-naptime sleep aid, though. But as a way to convince adults with critical thinking skills of anything, it is pretty horrible.

Sorry troll, your vapid babbling on a message board is no substitute for mountains of research.