Difference between revisions of "Eyespot"
m |
(Rewrite creationist response.) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger <ref>D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58)</ref> used computer modeling of the evolution of eyes to find out if it was possible for there to be a smooth gradient of change from a pigmented eye spot to an [[eye]] with a lens and cornea, and how long such a transformation would take. They used highly conservative figures for the possible change in each generation. Many human traits are over 50% heritable, and they gave their model a lower figure. They also chose very conservative values for the amount of possible variation in a population. Using these figures, they calculated that through the mechanism of evolution an eyespot could evolve into an eye with a lens and a cornea in less than a half a million years. | D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger <ref>D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58)</ref> used computer modeling of the evolution of eyes to find out if it was possible for there to be a smooth gradient of change from a pigmented eye spot to an [[eye]] with a lens and cornea, and how long such a transformation would take. They used highly conservative figures for the possible change in each generation. Many human traits are over 50% heritable, and they gave their model a lower figure. They also chose very conservative values for the amount of possible variation in a population. Using these figures, they calculated that through the mechanism of evolution an eyespot could evolve into an eye with a lens and a cornea in less than a half a million years. | ||
| − | This | + | This scenario is contested by [[Young Earth Creationists]], who point out that the scenario begins with a highly-complex structure, and doesn't include the supporting neural structures, without which the eye would be useless.<ref> Sarfati, Jonathan , with Matthews, Michael, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3287 Refuting Evolution 2], chapter 10.</ref> |
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 12:06, September 5, 2007
A light-sensitive region in certain protozoa,[1] such as Euglena.
D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger [2] used computer modeling of the evolution of eyes to find out if it was possible for there to be a smooth gradient of change from a pigmented eye spot to an eye with a lens and cornea, and how long such a transformation would take. They used highly conservative figures for the possible change in each generation. Many human traits are over 50% heritable, and they gave their model a lower figure. They also chose very conservative values for the amount of possible variation in a population. Using these figures, they calculated that through the mechanism of evolution an eyespot could evolve into an eye with a lens and a cornea in less than a half a million years.
This scenario is contested by Young Earth Creationists, who point out that the scenario begins with a highly-complex structure, and doesn't include the supporting neural structures, without which the eye would be useless.[3]
References
- ↑ Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With Biology. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998
- ↑ D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58)
- ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan , with Matthews, Michael, Refuting Evolution 2, chapter 10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 <-A short video explaining the possible evolution of the eye.