Yeah and it’s not like there’s any literature on that question. It’s been completely ignored by evolutionists ever since Darwin. Right?
Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1994; 256:53-58.
1 Like
Tagging on: “Eyes” have independently evolved 40 times at least (maybe 70?). This is one of those very strange cases where some people seem to think the MORE it happens, the LESS likely it is to occur.
5 Likes
That’s good! I can start with you. Show me where a system has been clearly defined in the literature which involves no information exchange. And then clearly explain step one of evolving this system to one that will create our visual system. Or any other subjective experience. Or any organism which would dare to smirk at the grave of a godly man.
I think that ID has made it apparent to laymen that you won’t be able to do this. I will wait for your answer.
Perhaps you are unaware of the history of this forum. 
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, just not much recently. I think this is the oldest one:
with addition side discussion:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-evolution-of-the-eye/2455
And a bit here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/scd-asks-questions-on-design-and-evolution/12352/34
BUT maybe I misunderstand what you are asking?
If one step is all you need, I do not understand why you think all the steps must be difficult.
2 Likes
I have no idea what you mean by a system that involves no information exchange, much less why that seems to be your starting point for arguing about the evolution of eyes.
But I can tell you step one in the evolution of eyes. Change a g-protein coupled receptor so it becomes sensitive to the presence or absence of light. That means the g-protein binds a chromophore (such as retinal), and a mutation to lysine at position 296 (in the typical opsin) in the g-protein makes it able to affect the conformational change in the g-protein that ultimately results in changed genetic expression (and thus cellular behavior).
A membrane bound chemical receptor of a certain class (GPCRs), already tied to regulated cellular behavior, becomes an opsin. The cell now reacts to the presence of light. You now have your first eye.
Done.
3 Likes
I’ll stop you right there. You are a Molecular Biology Technician. Are you able to determine a system that involves information processing from one that does not?
Since I don’t know what you mean by that or how you think it relates to eyes, no.
Again. You are a Molecular Biology Technician. How do you determine a system that involves information processing from one that does not?
My toilet has a lid on it that opens a closes. Like my laptop. Can a Molecular Biology Technician determine the difference between a toilet and a laptop?
I think so, yes. How does that relate to the evolution of eyes?
1 Like
So you understand the point better when I say information processing instead of information exchange.
Show me where a system has been clearly defined in the literature which involves no information processing. And then clearly explain step one of evolving this system to one that will create our visual system. Or any other subjective experience. Or any organism which would dare to smirk at the grave of a godly man.
I think that ID has made it apparent to laymen that you won’t be able to do this. I will wait for your answer.
No, not at all. You have simply given me examples of things you consider to have information processing (a laptop), and things which do not (a toilet).
I genuinely do not understand why you try to relate this to the evolution of eyes. I think to explain the first step in the evolutionary origin of eyes I need to explain how an organism gained the ability to react to light.
I think talk about information processing (or exchange) is a needless complication that offers zero clarity to the question of how eyes first evolved.
So I will just dispense with your call for taking these ill-defined terms into consideration and direct your back to my previous explanation. I have explained the first step in how an organism could gain the ability to react to light, which I would consider the first step in the evolution of eyes. I have met your challenge.
4 Likes
Ok. You win. What I was saying really isn’t that important anyway.
The first step of a journey of a thousand miles? Easy. All molecules have electron orbitals which can be promoted by electromagnetic radiation, and our planet is bathed in the spectrum of the Sun. There is an extensive and varied catalog of biomolecules which take advantage of available light frequencies for photosynthesis, metabolism, pigmentation, and light sensing. Your planter geraniums will turn towards the Sun. Interaction with photons is a form of information processing, with rudimentary behavior distinguishing light from dark. The most basic systems are not eyes at all, just sensing that light is that-a-way. There are many more steps to a hawk’s vision, but they can be broken down incrementally along a path where selection has powerful effect. All it takes is a single mutation to shift response to the spectrum and you have chromatic vision.
3 Likes
Probably. Though a lot of people can’t, hence the amount of crap on the internet.
9 Likes
For sure a molecular biology technician can determine the difference between laptops and toilets on the one hand and living organisms or their organs on the other. Some lay folk struggle with that, it seems. This is why when they say things like
I for one find that somewhat unimpressive. There are zero standards one has to meet in order to qualify as a lay person in what ever field. All it takes is a charlatan with more confidence than shame, and for pretty much every whacky nonsense one can come up with, there’ll be some group of lay folk they can “make it apparent” to.
5 Likes
I gave this paragraph my best shot. In all honesty, I have no idea what it means.
I will nevertheless affirm that I don’t smirk at anyone’s grave, whether they be “a godly man” or not. And I admit that I have no idea how this relates to “Evolution of the Eye.”
As to the advantages of vision, the eyes have it. (Of course, there are exceptions, like the Mexican cavefish—with eyes so blind they cannot see. Kind of like many of the leaders of the “Intelligent Design theory is science” movement.)
4 Likes
My impression is that, despite the movement’s claim to be a scientific endeavour, no one associated with Intelligent Design has made even the slightest effort to establish a testable hypothesis for how the eye(s) came into existence.
If I am mistaken about that, please provide citations to the relevant literature. Thanks.
4 Likes
Sure, for practicality, we can define the entire prebiotic universe as a mechanical or a physical system. That is, a system which involves no information processing. The energy state of an electron might change and will emit a photon which might interact with a rock somewhere, floating around in space, causing a change in the one of the atoms that make up the rock. The electrons in a rock will increasingly begin to oscillate as the rock approaches the sun and will begin to glow red in color. As Rumraket pointed out, photons affect matter and visa versa.
But the eye itself, can never be a visual system. And you seem to intuitively know that the same is true also for a rock. So when I ask what can be done to a system like this to make it more like a system that will evolve a vision system, your answer was to add a plant to it. Presumably because there are processes going on inside a plant that involve complex chemistry and proteins.
But proteins and chemistry can exist without necessarily being a part our visual system or any other information processing system. Yet we know information processing systems exist in biology and I have given our visual system as evidence of this. So can any evolutionist clearly explain what is required to build an information processing system from proteins and chemistry? In the case of our visual system, I predict you won’t be able to do this. Because it’s a system that involves an intellect. That’s why adults can see better than infants. And evolutionists are not allowed to use any words that imply a mind or intellect. Right?
You’ll need to tell us what you mean by “evolutionist.” By every definition I’ve encountered (with the caveat that people who use the word “evolutionist” are usually low-intelligence people addicted to childish dichotomies), the answer is “no, that’s hilariously wrong.”
2 Likes