The Evolution of the Eye

@Zmugzy (773)
March 8, 2007 12:52pm CST
Evolution sceptics often attack Darwin's theory by using the human eye as an example. How could something so complex have developed through random mutations and natural selection? How could evolution led to the creation of such a complex organ as the human eye? How could all the separate parts of the eye: the pupil, the lens, the retina, the iris, the rods and cones etc. have evolved? It was a lecture given many years ago by Richard Dawkins - explaining how the eye could have evolved on numerous occasions - that convinced me how natural selection and adaptation could explain how complex organisms had evolved on earth. He explained step by step how the first eye-like structure could have evolved into a more complex organ. Like many Biologists today, he used the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through. I found this useful explanation below: “A simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html As the article points out "eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve." According to some calculations, an eye-like structure similar to the human eye could have evolved from a light-sensitive patch in less than 400,000. This means that the eye could have evolved separately in many species on many occasions. Amazing! What amazes you about the evolution of life on Earth?
3 people like this
3 responses
20 Mar 07
I think you said it all there. I do believe that the evidence for evolution is everywhere and I have read some of Dawkin's books. I cannot believe that there are still people who believe in the creationist myth!
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
20 Mar 07
I cannot believe that there are still people who believe in the evolution myth!
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
9 Mar 07
I see concepts such as "chance" and "random changes" in your text. These are the words/concept of a evolutionist correct?
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
9 Mar 07
Problems: Even evolutionists recognize that eyes must have arisen independently at least 30 times because there is no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. Imagine that! It was hard enough to believe that the eye could have evolved even one time. Now you guys have the incredible task of explaining how it would have evolved 30 times independently!!! " Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently) [Scientific American 83] Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Keep in mind the eye outstrips any human technology yet as your text confirms it's a random process based on chance Dr Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take a minimum of a hundred Cray [super computer]time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second. Wow you guys might as well hang it up!
@Zmugzy (773)
9 Mar 07
You say - "It was hard enough to believe that the eye could have evolved even one time" - Not at all, as you say, the eye must have evolved independently many times - it has been estimated that "only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch". There are indeed a range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species that allows one to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through. Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history.
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
9 Mar 07
Keep in mind that if all of the eyes are evolving independently, you have the problem of irreducible complexity in each case. The eye contains many interdependent system composed of parts that would be useless with out the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. So natural selection in no way or fashion would be able to account such a feat. Thousands of years is going to help you since all the components are needed on day one! Darwin also suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. But first this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. Second, it's fallacious to argue that 51 percent vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50 percent to overcome the effects of genetic drift tendency to eliminate even benefition mutations Furthermore, an eye makes little sense on its own, because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated machinery to make use of this information Eyes can't descend from other eyes per se, rather organisms pass on genes for eyes for their decedents. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pin hole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of of the vertebrate lens/camera eye then because the nautilus as a whole is ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionist!
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
This is a great thread Zmugzy, I'm glad you started it. It will make it a lot easier for me to remember to respond to it, which I will do tonight when I get back from class. I'm somewhat familiar with this argument proposed by Dawkins.