Why Evolution is a Fairytale for Grown-Ups

[Robert W]

Probably. Judging from this thread.

Did you understand all this topic was the creation of one person, in Sweden?

 

[scruffy]

I started this topic using a genine PH.d Scientist. Did you check him out?

Of course. I'm a genuine PhD scientist too. I know more than he does, and more than you do.

To prove it, I'll tell you something about the retina you didn't know.

Humans, have something called "optic flow". You can actually measure it, in the lab. Not all creatures have it.

It turns out, that optic flow evolved from the neural circuitry for "looming", which is a brainstem reflex. Looming is most obvious in rodents, it's somewhat repressed in humans (although still present).

You can elicit a looming reflex by passing a large dark stimulus over the top of the visual field. Kind of like a predatory bird flying above you.

Looming is organized in the superior colliculus of the brainstem. What almost no one knows is, it's organized in early development BEFORE BIRTH. And it's organized by the retina, not the brainstem.

The relationship between looming and optic flow is a retinal neuron called a starburst amacrine cell. This cell, doesn't send any output to the visual cortex. Instead, what it does is send waves LATERALLY through the retina.

These waves, program the future direction of optic flow.

This is a great example of evolution, because the outcome and it's reason are completely disconnected. Nature uses whatever works.

Here is the original paper on the topic:

Retinal waves prime visual motion detection by simulating future optic flow - PubMed

The ability to perceive and respond to environmental stimuli emerges in the absence of sensory experience. Spontaneous retinal activity prior to eye opening guides the refinement of retinotopy and eye-specific segregation in mammals, but its role in the development of higher-order visual...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

See? You just learned something.

 

[Robert W]

Of course. I'm a genuine PhD scientist too. I know more than he does, and more than you do.

I believe you. HE teaches students working on PhD science. Where did he go wrong as you say he did?

 

[excalibur]

Because you don't understand it, it can't be true? I guess you never got past the object permeance stage.

Gee, thanks for your nothing post.

Evolution is an impossibility if you actually used some brain power to think about it.

 

[excalibur]

lol

No engineer would design an eye that way.

An engineer has so little clue about an actual eye. Such as, why see in color?

 

[Robert W]

Nature uses whatever works.

Thank you for your scientific explanation.
Nature as you call it is what? I suspect you will recycle back to nature. I am really interested in power claims made about nature. Maybe you know about that too.

My view today about Nature is molecules, elements and things called living.

 

[Robert W]

Of course. I'm a genuine PhD scientist too. I know more than he does, and more than you do.

I do not claim to be the expert on this topic. I eagerly consult you.

 

[alang1216]

Gee, thanks for your nothing post.

Evolution is an impossibility if you actually used some brain power to think about it.

Here is something for your brain power to process.

 

[Robert W]

Retinal waves prime visual motion detection by simulating future optic flow - PubMed

The ability to perceive and respond to environmental stimuli emerges in the absence of sensory experience. Spontaneous retinal activity prior to eye opening guides the refinement of retinotopy and eye-specific segregation in mammals, but its role in the development of higher-order visual...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

See? You just learned something.

I am working on it. I am admitting my ignorance about the working eye.

 

[DukeU]

Non sequitur.

Just because things change doesn't mean there are no rules.



Armchair philosophy is worthless.

So, what you wrote here is BS?

VVVVV

Nothing is finished.

Everything is constantly evolving.

We're an experiment in progress.

You can't have it both ways, either everything is evolving or it's not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Explain a fish with NO eyes, obtaining eyes.

Photo may help you.

View attachment 1112084

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand.

 

[alang1216]

Gee, thanks for your nothing post.

Evolution is an impossibility if you actually used some brain power to think about it.

You post nothing, you get nothing. Seems fair.

 

[alang1216]

An engineer has so little clue about an actual eye. Such as, why see in color?

Ripening fruit.

 

[Robert W]

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand.

You are too stupid to be sorry. You proved it over and over.

 

[scruffy]

I believe you. HE teaches students working on PhD science. Where did he go wrong as you say he did?

Science is constantly evolving, just like everything else. So is math. (I started a whole long thread bitching about the math part). Kids learn yesterday's science, from yesterday's professors. Unlike many college professors, I pride myself on continuing education. I read thousands upon thousands of papers on the retina every year. There's probably very few papers I haven't read.

Any topic in modern biology requires an understanding of genetics and therefore development and evolution. The retina (which is something I specialize in and claim to know a lot about) is very complicated. The human retina has at least 16 distinct layers, whereas most modern textbooks will claim it only has five. There are 73 cell types (distinguishable on the basis of genetics as well as branching patterns), whereas most textbooks still speak in terms of 5, or a dozen if they happen to include on-center and off-center variations.

The paper I showed you is dated 2021. Almost no one knows about it (you can ask around). It'll take another dozen years till it becomes popular, and meanwhile there are thousands of PhD graduates who won't learn about it, and when they become professors won't teach it either.

Specifically about evolution, the whole story of Hox and Sox and Pax genes is only a few years old. Most PhD scientists have only the vaguest understanding of "transcription factors", if you start asking them about RAX you'll get a blank stare. I asked my doctor about it, he had no idea, even though it's directly involved in some significant medical conditions.

The starburst amacrine cell I mentioned, was first related to something called the "retinal shift effect" by the psychologist Alberta Gilinsky in 1959. She was studying visual illusions, like the moon illusion. It took till 2021 for someone to unravel its role during development, which is different from its mature role. Same cell, same genes, different expression and different function. Evolution is like that, it's very dynamic. Nature has a HUGE library of things to draw from. Human beings don't really need a looming reflex (if a predatory bird shows up we just swat it out of the sky), so the underlying genes have been repurposed for the more important capability of optic flow. A lot of biology is that way, it's stuff built on top of other stuff. To understand it you need to know about the history, and the development of the organism. Broad sweeping generalizations don't really tell us very much, more often than not they're counterproductive.

From my standpoint, evolution is biophysics. Selection pressures are rarely if ever direct (anymore).

 

[scruffy]

So, what you wrote here is BS?

VVVVV






You can't have it both ways, either everything is evolving or it's not.

Some things evolve faster than others.

 

[DukeU]

Some things evolve faster than others.

Your story is evolving pretty quick.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are too stupid to be sorry. You proved it over and over.

Since you have nothing more intelligent to offer, I will place you on mental ignore and refuse to respond to your comments regarding me since you are my target now.

 

[Robert W]

Science is constantly evolving, just like everything else. So is math. (I started a whole long thread bitching about the math part). Kids learn yesterday's science, from yesterday's professors. Unlike many college professors, I pride myself on continuing education. I read thousands upon thousands of papers on the retina every year. There's probably very few papers I haven't read.

Any topic in modern biology requires an understanding of genetics and therefore development and evolution. The retina (which is something I specialize in and claim to know a lot about) is very complicated. The human retina has at least 16 distinct layers, whereas most modern textbooks will claim it only has five. There are 73 cell types (distinguishable on the basis of genetics as well as branching patterns), whereas most textbooks still speak in terms of 5, or a dozen if they happen to include on-center and off-center variations.

The paper I showed you is dated 2021. Almost no one knows about it (you can ask around). It'll take another dozen years till it becomes popular, and meanwhile there are thousands of PhD graduates who won't learn about it, and when they become professors won't teach it either.

Specifically about evolution, the whole story of Hox and Sox and Pax genes is only a few years old. Most PhD scientists have only the vaguest understanding of "transcription factors", if you start asking them about RAX you'll get a blank stare. I asked my doctor about it, he had no idea, even though it's directly involved in some significant medical conditions.

The starburst amacrine cell I mentioned, was first related to something called the "retinal shift effect" by the psychologist Alberta Gilinsky in 1959. She was studying visual illusions, like the moon illusion. It took till 2021 for someone to unravel its role during development, which is different from its mature role. Same cell, same genes, different expression and different function. Evolution is like that, it's very dynamic. Nature has a HUGE library of things to draw from. Human beings don't really need a looming reflex (if a predatory bird shows up we just swat it out of the sky), so the underlying genes have been repurposed for the more important capability of optic flow. A lot of biology is that way, it's stuff built on top of other stuff. To understand it you need to know about the history, and the development of the organism. Broad sweeping generalizations don't really tell us very much, more often than not they're counterproductive.

From my standpoint, evolution is biophysics. Selection pressures are rarely if ever direct (anymore).

I believe you. Thanks for the lessons.

 

[scruffy]

Your story is evolving pretty quick.

Complex life emerged on Earth 591 million years ago, now scientists think they figured out how it happened

591 million years ago, Earth's magnetic field was so weak it almost disappeared. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, complex life emerged.

www.earth.com