CAN EVOLUTION PRODUCE AN EYE? Evolution vs. Creation

The Ignorant Fishermen Blog ^ | 1/1/94 | Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

The following is by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. It is copyrighted 1994 by Missouri Association for Creation --

The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.

In an article in "Byte" magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

[tacticalogic]

So, based on this article, you’re prepared to assert that God could not have created life with the ability to evolve an eye.

[DavidAccord]

You would be surprised what evolution can produce given that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

[tacticalogic]

A polymorphic self-replicating molecular program could could come up with a lot of different combinations in that amount of time.

[ctdonath2]

Has there been much progress in computers in the past 25 years?

You could say it has ... evolved.

[DavidAccord]

Up until 4.2 billion years ago, the highest form of life was the amoeba, a one-celled creature.

The only way we progressed to humans is that the world is not perfect. If it were perfect, the amoeba would have never morphed into anything else.

And if the world were perfect, who would need to buy paper towels for spills?

[whattajoke]

Up until 4.2 billion years ago, the highest form of life was the amoeba, a one-celled creature.

I don't think amoebae were around that far back. At least there's not fossil record of them AFAIK. The earliest we are aware of date to the Neoprotozoic Era, which dates back "only" half a billion years.

[stormer]

It doesn't matter - the change in allele frequency that brings about modification in the structure of the eye is enough to prove that evolution has taken place. This is not simply an example of phenotypic plasticity.

[stormer]

Very cute, and not an animal I was familiar with, so I decided to do a quick bit of research. Here are my favorite factoids:

Statues of tanuki can be found outside many Japanese temples and restaurants, especially noodle shops. These statues often wear big, cone-shaped hats and carry bottles of sake in one hand, and a promissory note or empty purse in the other hand. Tanuki statues always have large bellies. The statues also usually show humorously large testicles, typically hanging down to the floor or ground, although this feature is sometimes omitted in contemporary sculpture.

A common schoolyard song in Japan makes explicit reference to the tanuki's anatomy:

Tan Tan Tanuki no kintama wa, Kaze mo nai no ni, Bura bura

Roughly translated, this means, Tan-tan-tanuki's testicles, there isn't even any wind but still go swing-swing-swing.

It continues for several verses, with many regional variations. It is sung to the melody of an American Baptist hymn called "Shall We Gather At The River?".

Is Japan a great country, or what?

[whattajoke]

Very cute, and not an animal I was familiar with, so I decided to do a quick bit of research.

Another factoid: In Super Mario Brothers 3, one of the best designed video games of my era, when Mario grabbed the leaf to gain the ability to fly, he's called "Tanuki Mario." And all the while we just called him "Racoon Mario."

Anyway, I'm still curious what the creationist take on Tanukis is. I mean... What are they? Racoons? Dogs? Badgers? Surely they have a simple answer.

[Zman516]

You could say it has ... evolved

And computers did it all by themselves! No 'intelligence' involved here! /sarc

[DavidAccord]

You are right, I meant to say 4.5 -4.2 billion = 300 millions years ago .. approx.

[stormer]

Unfortunately, a simple answer is the only one they would understand.

[count-your-change]

Then you haven’t read what you’ve linked. Go back and read it and then I’ll reply further.

[stormer]

I hope the one in Mario didn't look like this - might raise a lot of questions!

[stormer]

Really? Let's see where your confusion lies. Amoung the various links we have...

Pax 6 is a master control gene for eye morphogenesis; sequence comparisons have shown that evolution has recruited crystallins among already existing heat-shock proteins and stress-inducible enzymes,

or the use of existing proteins in the development of new structures;

The genetic control of eye development and its implications for the evolution of the various eye-types,

pretty stright forward;

The finding of Pax-6 from flatworms to humans suggests that eyeless is a universal master control gene and that the various types of eyes in the various animal phyla may have evolved from a single prototype... The wide variety of eyes in the animal kingdom may, therefore, have evolved from a single ancestral photosensitive organ...

Common descent? Ruh roh!;

Hmmm... Is this your "money shot"?

The evolutionary mechanisms responsible for eye degeneration in cave-adapted animals have not been resolved... (But) the manner of eye development and degeneration, the ability to experimentally restore eyes, gene expression patterns, and comparisons between different cavefish populations all provide important clues for understanding the evolutionary forces responsible for eye degeneration. A key discovery is that Hedgehog midline signaling is expanded and inhibits eye formation by inducing lens apoptosis in cavefish embryos. Accordingly, eyes could have been lost by default as a consequence of natural selection for constructive traits, such as feeding structures, which are positively regulated by Hh signaling. We conclude from these studies that eye degeneration in cavefish may be caused by adaptive evolution and pleiotropy.

Pleiotrophy is where a mutation in a single gene can influence multiple phenotypic traits - in other words, it is not a question of gain or loss, the eye morphology is a product of adaptation and selection of a beneficial mutation.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

A common schoolyard song in Japan makes explicit reference to the tanuki's anatomy

My favorite display of the tanuki's anatomy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq8xuVnB-Pk

(from 0:26)

[count-your-change]

Had you read and understood what was being said you might not have plucked a paragraph at random to make some point.

“As a result of lens transplantation, adult cavefish were obtained with a completely differentiated eye on one side of their head (Jeffery et al. 2003; Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000). Remarkably, orbital bone structure resembling the surface fish phenotype is also induced on the side of the head containing the restored eye, whereas the other side of the head has the craniofacial structure typical of cavefish (Figure 4C, D; Yamamoto et al. 2003). These results suggest that the lens dictates craniofacial morphology by controlling eye growth. Recent studies have shown that more retinal nerve fibers project from the restored eye to the contralateral optic tectum, which is also increased in size, suggesting that cavefish with a transplanted eye may be capable of vision (Soares et al. 2004).
In summary, lens transplantation indicates that cavefish have the capacity of form a complete eye and that they possess and are capable of using all the genetic factors necessary for later eye development.
. Thus far, the changes in gene expression patterns detected are either activations (e.g., hsp90) or subtle enhancements (e.g., shh) and reductions (e.g., pax6) in expression domains rather than loss of functions.”

The loss of sight in the cave fish was no adaption but a defect that left most of the sight mechanism intact.

The finding of Pax 6 in a variety of organisms demonstrates a common design.

You neither read nor understand what you post.

[Mudtiger]

“The finding of Pax-6 from flatworms to humans suggests that eyeless is a universal master control gene and that the various types of eyes in the various animal phyla may have evolved from a single prototype... The wide variety of eyes in the animal kingdom may, therefore, have evolved from a single ancestral photosensitive organ...

Common descent? Ruh roh!;”

Impressive modular design.

[stormer]

Don't you get tired of being wrong? What the evidence indicates is that the fish originally had sight, and rather than being a “defect”, the cave environment the trigger for eye formation are suppressed. It makes no sense to devote the energy and resources to develop those trait when that energy can be used elsewhere. Clearly an adaptation to environment.

Pax 6 indicates common descent (I know you just can't wrap your brain around that).

[count-your-change]

” It makes no sense to devote the energy and resources to develop those trait when that energy can be used elsewhere.”

Again you don't understand what was said in the paper. Energy conservation was not involved.

“Adaptive Evolution Based on Energy Conservation
If neutral processes do not adequately explain the evolution of eye regression, then we must turn to explanations based on adaptive evolution and natural selection. A major impediment to the adaptive hypothesis is lack of evidence for a trait that could be subject to natural selection and lead to loss of eyes. Studies do not support the possibility that eyes are lost due to selection for energy economy, one of the most popular adaptive explanations for regressive evolution in cave animals.

Several lines of evidence argue against the possibility that cavefish eye development is blocked to conserve energy. First, cavefish males and females show the same degree of eye reduction, although the high cost of egg production might be expected to dictate a greater degree of eye reduction in females, as has been reported in cave-adapted beetles (Park 1951). Second, cavefish populations inhabiting pools under bat colonies do not appear to be food-limited, yet they show significant eye regression (Breder 1943, 1953). Third, the manner of eye degeneration in Astyanax cavefish does not appear to be economical. Instead of undergoing eye loss at a very early stage, the cavefish eye develops to a relatively mature stage prior to the beginning of degeneration, presumably at high energetic cost.”

Once again you either didn't read or can't understand what you did read. OR BOTH!!