What Good is Half an Eye? — The Panda's Thumb (Legacy Archive)

Carl Zimmer tells us in two must-read posts:

Eyes, Part One: Opening Up the Russian Doll.

Eyes, Part Two: Fleas, Fish, and the Careful Art of Deconstruction.

Enjoy!

18 Comments

Henry J · 18 February 2005

The eyes have it!

Fernmonkey · 18 February 2005

See, this is why I don't get the whole creationism thing.

Evolution is just so much cooler.

Bryson Brown · 18 February 2005

This is just so much more satisfying than 'Poof, God did it!'. Different hypotheses, a detailed study, and it turns out that natural selection is likely to be the cause (in this particular case), with a little help from pleiotropy. Wonderful.

steve · 19 February 2005

Agreed. Magic is not satisfying.

Enough · 19 February 2005

David Blaine's magic is real!

steve · 19 February 2005

It was certainly better than the competition's, on South Park.

Creationist Timmy · 19 February 2005

How does one group of animals evolve one of these new molecules? One way is to borrow it. Joram Piatigorsky of the National Eye Institute and his colleagues have identified many of the molecules that make up the lens and cornea of humans and other animals. These molecules are practically identical to molecules found elsewhere in the body. Some are essential for the development of the head in an embryo. Others protect our cells from heat and other stress, others detoxify poisons that would otherwise build up in the blood. Originally, the evidence indicates, many of the molecules found in eyes today were only produced in other parts of the body. But then, thanks to a mutation, the same gene began producing its molecule in the developing eye. It just so happened to have the physical properties that made it well suited to being in an eye. In later generations, natural selection favored mutations that made it work better in the eye.

This is impossible. Islands of functionality are separated by insurmountable distance, according to the leading ID Theorists. I'm sure they wouldn't have just made such a thing up. Joram Piatigorsky must be part of the global conspiracy to hide the truth.

Creationist Jimmy · 19 February 2005

But then, thanks to a mutation, the same gene began producing its molecule in the developing eye. It just so happened to have the physical properties that made it well suited to being in an eye.

This is, of course, impossible. Even if there are systems in an organism that might have the potential to beneficially modify other systems just by mutation, it is clearly impossible for this to happen by the Second Rule of Intelligent Design. Or is it the Third Rule? Can someone remind me of the rules of ID? I seem to have forgotten the basic theory behind it. CJ

Randall Wald · 20 February 2005

This is, of course, impossible. Even if there are systems in an organism that might have the potential to beneficially modify other systems just by mutation, it is clearly impossible for this to happen by the Second Rule of Intelligent Design. Or is it the Third Rule? Can someone remind me of the rules of ID? I seem to have forgotten the basic theory behind it. CJ
— Creationist Jimmy

No, you meant the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since the earth is a closed system to first order approximation.

Bob Maurus · 20 February 2005

God help us - Timmy has a twin brother! Does anyone know which one is the evil one?

Zimmer's pieces were, as usual, excellent. I recently reread his "At The Water's Edge," about lobefin and whale evolution.

Creationist Timmy · 20 February 2005

I've never seen my comrade before. Maybe he's just riding on the coattails of fame and renoun.

Marcus Good · 20 February 2005

I wonder if there's an anti-Carl.

Creationist Zimmy.

Bob Maurus · 20 February 2005

Perhaps in league with Pim's anti?

Creatonist Pimmy?

steve · 20 February 2005

I seem to remember a creationist named Barley Zagner who used to come around here. Used to talk about how his VCR never put itself together. Supposedly had something to do with evolution, though I can't remember what or how at the moment.

I recently reread his "At The Water's Edge," about lobefin and whale evolution.

I want to read that. For the moment I'm still reading the Mayr book, and a big pile of quantum, electronics, some old english stuff like Chaucer, for school, but also a good book for Eng 425 called Best American Science Writing 2004. Highly recommended.

steve · 20 February 2005

Speaking of Pimmy, where is he? You'd think that with John Davison, DaveScot, Dave Heddle, Empiricist, etc. around, he'd be typing so fast he dents the keys.

Frank J · 21 February 2005

Can't resist another groaner. How about "Creationist gimmee":

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html

curious · 23 February 2005

Being utterly convinced and being right are two different things guys, oh yea, you're biologists.

Bob Maurus · 23 February 2005

Steve,

Following Zimmer's, I reread Gee'e "In Search of Deep Time" - same subjects, different perspective. Interesting.