Difference between revisions of "Eyespot"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Capital T Truth prevails. If we stoop to misrepresenting evolutionist small t truth, we are no better than them!)
m (Reverted edits by JonSociologist (Talk) to last version by Karajou)
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 evil [[evolutionist]] and an [[Atheist]] opponent of religion, also explains [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=richard+dawkins+eye+evolution&emb=0# the evolution of the eye] in a lecture he gave in a failed attempt to pervert the minds of school-children.  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 [[neurons]].  The neurons would 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.
+
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><ref>[http://science.jrank.org/pages/4595/Nervous-System-Evolution-invertebrate-nervous-systems.html Nervous System - Evolution Of Invertebrate Nervous Systems]</ref>
 
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Biology]]
 
[[Category:Biology]]
 +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4  <-A short video explaining the possible evolution of the eye.

Revision as of 18:42, January 29, 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 <-A short video explaining the possible evolution of the eye.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Eyespot&oldid=616146"