Difference between revisions of "Eyespot"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Sorry. Got overzelous. The "perverse and cruel atheist" entry on Marquis de Sade set the tone for me.)
m (Reverted edits by JonSociologist (Talk) to last version by Conservative)
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.
  
−
[[Richard Dawkins]], an [[evolutionist]] and an [[Atheist]], also explains [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=richard+dawkins+eye+evolution&emb=0# the evolution of the eye].  Dawkins starts with a light sensitive patch called a photoreceptor, which is a simple light sensitive protein that would allow specific responses to stimuli, such as turning away from light, without requiring even a simple [[nervous system]].  Dawkins explains how in small simple steps a complex eye could develop.  An eye and a nervous system would then arise as some cells specialized into [[retina|retinal]] cells and some into [[neurons]].  The neurons would then slowly develop into multi cellular [[ganglia|ganglion]].  As more and more ganglia formed, a more complex nervous system would develop naturally and in small simple steps, parallel to the evolution of the eye.<ref>[http://science.jrank.org/pages/4595/Nervous-System-Evolution-invertebrate-nervous-systems.html Nervous System - Evolution Of Invertebrate Nervous Systems]</ref>
+
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>
  
−
 
−
These scenarios are contested by [[Young Earth Creationists]], who point out that the scenarios begin with a highly-complex structure (a light sensitive protein), and doesn't include the supporting neural structures (neurons and ganglia), 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>
 
−
 
−
 
−
Dawkins can be answered by Proverbs 20:12 "The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, Jehovah hath made even both of them."  Dawkins' idol, Darwin himself, was obliged to appeal to the “absurd” to account for the origin of the eye by random change and natural selection.
 
−
<ref>AnswersInGenesis [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/seeing-eye The Seeing Eye]</ref>
 
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Biology]]
 
[[Category:Biology]]

Revision as of 04:57, January 30, 2009

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

  1. ↑ Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With Biology. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998
  2. ↑ 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)
  3. ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan , with Matthews, Michael, Refuting Evolution 2, chapter 10.
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Eyespot&oldid=616498"