Evolution Education: Evolution of the Eye Special Issue

I'd tire of constantly fighting with folks who are chasing windmills. Philosophers would make a better foil against what the creationists actually practice: sophism.

Enjoy.

It's a fascinating if somewhat fruitless exercise to wonder for how much longer this creationist quote-mine of Darwin's "evolution of the eye" will be used in their arguments. I mean, the full context has been pointed out to them (insert ridiculously large number here) times, yet they fail to demonstrate even a pre-school understanding of the english language every time they use it. It becomes very tiring.

Yeah I read Oakley and Gregory's articles on eye evolution a couple of weeks ago. Unfortuantely neither address the crux of the issue: namely the origin of the biochemical phototransduction cascade.

To be fair, Oakley's article (the 'Black Box' one) at least tries to give some biochemical details. But it only scratches the surface by suggesting a potential origin of the opsin protein. Unfortunately the origin of a new opsin protein is not equivalent to the origin of an entire phototransduction cascade.

So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation. Descriptions of morphological change, comparisons of genes, crystallins, etc. all skirt the issue if it cannot be shown how the phototransduction cascade itself arose.

Green said: (snip) So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation. Descriptions of morphological change, comparisons of genes, crystallins, etc. all skirt the issue if it cannot be shown how the phototransduction cascade itself arose.

You say that we don't know how the phototransduction cascade arose "yet". Then why is the above work described as 'outstanding' and paraded as as a victory against ID & creationsim? Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along! Not more gene comparisons or morphological descriptions.

Mike of Oz said: It's a fascinating if somewhat fruitless exercise to wonder for how much longer this creationist quote-mine of Darwin's "evolution of the eye" will be used in their arguments. I mean, the full context has been pointed out to them (insert ridiculously large number here) times, yet they fail to demonstrate even a pre-school understanding of the english language every time they use it. It becomes very tiring.

Um, the co-opting of a G protein coupled receptor is a pretty nice way to explain the origins of a phototransduction cascade.

From the review by Oakley and Pankey:

"With current knowledge that opsin is the basis of light sensitivity, Darwin’s question of how a nerve becomes light sensitive can be rephrased as, “how did animal opsins originate?” Proteins rarely originate from nowhere, and opsins are no exception. Opsins form a subfamily within a larger family of proteins called G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), also sometimes called serpentine proteins because they snake back and forth across cell membranes. Since serpentine proteins are present in all animals and their close relatives—including sponges, Monsiga, and fungi—we know that this broad class of proteins long predates animals. In yeast (a fungus), these receptors are sensitive to pheromones, and they even direct a signal through proteins homologous to non-opsin phototransduction proteins. As such, a signaling pathway exists outside animals, which is very similar to phototransduction, except that the receptor protein detects pheromones, not light. Receptors outside animals share some characteristics with opsin, like snaking through a cell membrane seven times. It is one of these serpentine proteins that served as the progenitor of the first opsin protein, as evidenced by the similarity of opsins and other serpentine proteins."

Incidentally, I don't see how more knowledge could give 'insight' into phototransduction evolution. We know all the components involved. The problem is not a lack of knowledge, the problem is a conceptual one.

A minimum no. of components are needed simultaneously for this cascade, otherwise no light signal is transduced and no selection pressure is exerted. For example, Oakley and Pankey say that even the opsin protein itself - just one protein in a whole cascade - can't become light sensitive until it gets another mutation to make it associate with retinal. So this is at least two co-ordinated mutations that have to happen before opsin is any use to the cell.

Anyway, the above example pales in comparison to the whole phototransduction cascade, as well as the proteins that are needed to restore opsin to original state after the cascade has been activated. It's quite clear you need *numerous* *simultaneous* mutations before any functional advantage is conferred. Doesn't sound too Darwinian to me.

Yeah I knew that co-option thing would be coming. Turns out there was a mistake in that Oakley and Pankey paper.

The yeast intracellular signalling cascade turns out not to be homologous in any way to the metazoan signalling cascade. It just got published before the authors realised.

Green said: Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along!

Green said: So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation.

Also, Re-your first comment Art - surely you realise that the origin of a new opsin is a far cry from the origin of a whole cascade? did you not read my first comment on that?

Green said: Also, Re-your first comment Art - surely you realise that the origin of a new opsin is a far cry from the origin of a whole cascade? did you not read my first comment on that?

Dear Richard,

Hope Ken's book isn't having the same kind effect on you that Dembski's might with an IDiot creo. BTW, Francisco Ayala has an elegant examination of the evolution of the eye in invertebrates and vertebrates in his latest book.

Cheers,

John

Green said: It's quite clear you need *numerous* *simultaneous* mutations before any functional advantage is conferred. Doesn't sound too Darwinian to me.

KP - see my comment 8.

Also, I agree that it's good that people are trying to provide detailed explanations e.g. Oakley and Pankey, since, like they say, a biochemical explanation is required.

However, what I object to the parading of these examples as triumphs of evolutionary theory, when they clearly they are not. Blog titles such as this one give the false impression that evolutionary theory has explained the evolution of complex organs like the eye. However, if people actually read the papers, they would realise that it hasn't.

Bottom line is that most people will not read the papers cited, and then they'll ignorantly join in with the ID bashing. That's what I object to, and that's why I'm pointing out the flaws.

However, what I object to the parading of these examples as triumphs of evolutionary theory, when they clearly they are not. Blog titles such as this one give the false impression that evolutionary theory has explained the evolution of complex organs like the eye. However, if people actually read the papers, they would realise that it hasn’t.

Green said: Bottom line is that most people will not read the papers cited, and then they'll ignorantly join in with the ID bashing. That's what I object to, and that's why I'm pointing out the flaws.

Matt G said:

ID bashing? ID has give us nothing to bash! Mechanisms? Testable hypotheses? Data? Anything other than dishonest and ultimately empty rhetoric?

Green said: Yeah I knew that co-option thing would be coming. Turns out there was a mistake in that Oakley and Pankey paper. The yeast intracellular signalling cascade turns out not to be homologous in any way to the metazoan signalling cascade. It just got published before the authors realised.

I had no idea such a journal existed; this is quite exciting. Thanks a bunch for the tip!

For the Google impaired (Green?) Oakley's blog is here. The post is not yet up. I'll flag it here when it's up.

Green said: Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along! Not more gene comparisons or morphological descriptions.

Green said: like they say, a biochemical explanation is required.

A minimum no. of components are needed simultaneously for this cascade, otherwise no light signal is transduced and no selection pressure is exerted.

— Green

Green said: Yeah I knew that co-option thing would be coming.

I know this is off topic, but I want to alert everyone to a terrible new book that is out. "10 Books That Screwed Up The World", by Benjamin Wiker. One of those books is Darwin's "Descent Of Man". It is the old 'Darwin To Hitler' charge, AGAIN. There were lots of positive reviews on Amazon.com. I tried to comment there but couldn't, because I never bought a book. The nerve!!!

Green's is the usual creationist/ID schtick: "You can't explain everything to my personal satisfaction, therefore you can't explain anything."

Forget that all the evidence that does exist corroborates evolution, and that it's plentiful. Never mind that no other explanation exists for which any genuine evidence can be found at all. Discard the fact that it is sheer intransigent lunacy to ask for perfect knowledge of anything whatsoever. None of this matters. What matters is how it plays to the gallery.

It's as dishonest as the gypsy switch and as easy as pie. No wonder the creobots love it so.

Frank B said: I know this is off topic, but I want to alert everyone to a terrible new book that is out. "10 Books That Screwed Up The World", by Benjamin Wiker. One of those books is Darwin's "Descent Of Man". It is the old 'Darwin To Hitler' charge, AGAIN. There were lots of positive reviews on Amazon.com. I tried to comment there but couldn't, because I never bought a book. The nerve!!!

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I wanted to note that it appears that all of the contents of this journal are available for free on line, not just this special issue. Lots of interesting stuff!

Leftfield said: I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I wanted to note that it appears that all of the contents of this journal are available for free on line, not just this special issue. Lots of interesting stuff!

ravilyn sanders said: Really? The creotard argument has always been, "there is no way the evolution of the eye could even be imagined!." Then we come along and explain this is how it could be imagined. Look at all the various kinds of eyes in various stages of development all through the animal kingdom. Then you move the goal posts. "Nah! Not enough if you could explain how it could but we demand you explain how it did." Another round more research, showing genes responsible and their wide presence in all kinds of animals, and now suddenly you claim you have been asking for biochemical details all along. No doubt when they were available you will come up with something else to ask for. You think you are so clever and these science supporters are dumb and you are sure an idiot could ask a question in a minute that takes the wise million years to answer. But you are losing buddy. Over the last 150 years, you have lost Europe, Canada, New Zeland and Australia. USA is your last foothold. When India and/or China shock America with another "sputnik", you guys will be sent packing.

Green said: You say that we don't know how the phototransduction cascade arose "yet". Then why is the above work described as 'outstanding' and paraded as as a victory against ID & creationsim? Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along! Not more gene comparisons or morphological descriptions.

Dave Luckett said: Green's is the usual creationist/ID schtick: "You can't explain everything to my personal satisfaction, therefore you can't explain anything."

Oh, and I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Dembski has given up on almost everything that he has ever written about, and made mean nasty comments to "Darwinians" about. That's very sad to hear about that. At one point he was as good as Isaac Newton, or so I've heard from ID creationist people. It's so very sad.

reindeer386sx said: But what's the point of having an ID theory if it's all ID and no theory? It's just all a bunch of nay-saying! It doesn't make any sense to call it a theory!

One might argue that we are just pushing back the origins, changing the question of "phototransduction" origin to the question of "transduction" origins. In a way this is true, but it is also a fundamental insight about how evolution works. New features are not breathed into organisms by some unknown force, they evolve by duplication/divergence or recombination of existing features. Trace a feature like phototransduction back far enough in evolutionary time, component by component, and it grades into something else altogether.

Dave Luckett said: Green's is the usual creationist/ID schtick: "You can't explain everything to my personal satisfaction, therefore you can't explain anything." Forget that all the evidence that does exist corroborates evolution, and that it's plentiful. Never mind that no other explanation exists for which any genuine evidence can be found at all. Discard the fact that it is sheer intransigent lunacy to ask for perfect knowledge of anything whatsoever. None of this matters. What matters is how it plays to the gallery. It's as dishonest as the gypsy switch and as easy as pie. No wonder the creobots love it so.

Aristotle: I suggest that the annual flooding of the Nile is caused by rainfall in mountains to the south of Egypt (not by miracles).

Alexander: Yep, I went and checked. It's rainfall.

Green: if you can't trace _every water molecule_ then your explanation is worthless. The Nile floods by Intelligent Flooding.

the vertebrate eye, is a long-time favorite of creationists and IDists. They happily quote Darwin’s notorious introductory sentence about it:

.... who does this specifically?

Excuse me for going off topic a bit, but I'm looking for some information on an old Panda's Thumb comment thread.

Specifically, it's the thread where it was discovered that the guys at Uncommon Descent were using a filter where if you made a comment they didn't like they could make it so that it only appeared for you if you were using the ISP of the guy posting it.

I want the link to that thread so I can add it to this post on my blog:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-they-want-to-silence-us.html

Please email me or drop a comment on my blog -- I'm no longer reading Panda's Thumb on a regular basis.

rescuer said: the vertebrate eye, is a long-time favorite of creationists and IDists. They happily quote Darwin’s notorious introductory sentence about it: .... who does this specifically?

KP- pointing out that no explanation has been given of the phototransduction cascade is not "nitpicking". It is the most fundamental building block / starting point for eye evolution.

RBH- ‘You ain’t doing it right!’ - the only reason I pointed these things out was to stop the crowing / bashing before it started. Gauging by the first 2 comments that's obviously where this entire thread was headed. I respect honest work to provide answers, but I don't respect dishonest parading of 'victories'.

Richard Simons- By 'we' - I'm referring to ID proponents, specifically what Behe asked for over 10 yrs ago in Darwin's Black Box.

Regarding one of my first responses to 'Art' - I pointed out that the yeast intracellular signalling cascade had not been co-opted for metazoan phototransduction, and this comment still stands. Despite the fact that the opsin/G proteins might be homologous, the intracellular signalling cascades are not.

It's been pointed out that the components of the cascade were around in the cell long before phototransduction. I don't see how this provides a solution at all.

Co-option may not be the de novo formation of genes, but it still requires mutations (such as, for example, the gain of a cis regulatory region). My whole point was that simultaneous mutations are required for the evolution of the phototransduction cascade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, opsin has no other function in the cell except photoreception. So in order for opsin to persist in the cell (once it has arisen by mutation), it must be simultaneously coupled with a mutation enabling it to associate with retinal, and thereby become light sensitive. Furthermore, once light sensitive, the rhodopsin complex needs proteins that restore it to its original conformation after it has been activated. There's no use in opsin being there unless these associated changes also occur. So, like I said, selection cannot act unless they all arise together. This is why I said the whole process doesn't look too Darwinian - some aspects are irreducibly complex.

It's not we don't know 'yet', its exactly what we *do* know that makes evolution on this level so implausible. And if it's implausible on this level, then how can you ever extrapolate up and say that morphological explanations are
plausible?

If you actually bothered to read anything about vertebrate opsin research, you'd know that there have been several opsins that have been recently discovered in tissues outside of the retina or eyes, such as Encephalopsin/Panopsin, and that their functions are still being researched.

You are using Behe's failed argument of "what we don't yet know means that we will never ever know."

Furthermore, if what you claim about evolution being implausible/impossible, then how come researchers persist in using Evolutionary Biology, and why is it that no Intelligent Design researchers have ever bothered to put in the time and effort to produce any research to begin with?

Come on you guys. You know who "rescuer" is. Why respond to it's nonsense? It has been banned by PvM and by Mark. Nick and RBH should ban it as well. The administration still seems powerless to do anything but we are not.

Green wrote:

"Co-option may not be the de novo formation of genes, but it still requires mutations (such as, for example, the gain of a cis regulatory region). My whole point was that simultaneous mutations are required for the evolution of the phototransduction cascade. Correct me if I’m wrong, ..."

You stand corrected. Every complex system that has been investigated has been found to be the result of gene duplcation and co-option. Sometimes the gene homologies are difficult to figure out, that is why gene comparisons are so important. Sometimes the original functions are difficult to figure out, that is why more research is needed. You can stand on the side lines and scream that we don't know everything all you want but the track record is clear. This approach has proven to be extremely useful and ID has not provided a single explanation for anything.

Behe has been proven wrong many times. Simultaneous mutations are not required. At this point the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are if you want to make that claim. How is your research going?

DS- Just saying 'co-option' misses the point. Mutliple co-option events are needed at the same. E.g. rhodopsin is no use without the proteins that restore its function. (I gave more examples above). Multiple co-option events occuring at the same time is unDarwinian.

Green said: DS- Just saying 'co-option' misses the point. Mutliple co-option events are needed at the same. E.g. rhodopsin is no use without the proteins that restore its function. (I gave more examples above). Multiple co-option events occuring at the same time is unDarwinian.

ravilyn sanders said: Really? The creotard argument has always been, "there is no way the evolution of the eye could even be imagined!." Then we come along and explain this is how it could be imagined. Look at all the various kinds of eyes in various stages of development all through the animal kingdom. Then you move the goal posts. "Nah! Not enough if you could explain how it could but we demand you explain how it did." Another round more research, showing genes responsible and their wide presence in all kinds of animals, and now suddenly you claim you have been asking for biochemical details all along. No doubt when they were available you will come up with something else to ask for.

Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call upon them to describe how special creations take place, I reply that this is far less than they demand from the supporters of the Development Hypothesis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode. On the other hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actual mode. They do not say - Show us how this may take place; but they say - Show us how this does take place. So far from its being unreasonable to put the above question, it would be reasonable to ask not only for a possible mode of special creation, but for an ascertained mode; seeing that this is no greater a demand than they make upon their opponents.

Green wrote:

"DS- Just saying ‘co-option’ misses the point. Mutliple co-option events are needed at the same. E.g. rhodopsin is no use without the proteins that restore its function. (I gave more examples above). Multiple co-option events occuring at the same time is unDarwinian."

Just saying "simultaneous" misses the point. That is not the way that evolution works. It isn't the way the vertebrate immune system evolved. it isn't the way the vertebrate blood clotting cascade evolved, it isn't the way the bacterial flagellum evolved. Why should it have to be the way that vision evolves?

Just because you can't imagine another pathway doesn't mean tha one doesn't exist. Searching for the actual pathway is what scientists are doing. Shouting at them that they must be wrong not to bother is hardly productive.

Green said: You say that we don't know how the phototransduction cascade arose "yet". Then why is the above work described as 'outstanding' and paraded as as a victory against ID & creationsim?

Green said: Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along! Not more gene comparisons or morphological descriptions.

Green said: KP- pointing out that no explanation has been given of the phototransduction cascade is not "nitpicking".

eric said:

Green said: KP- pointing out that no explanation has been given of the phototransduction cascade is not "nitpicking".

Green, you're still not getting a fundamental fact about science: it uses the best available theories. There is no arbitrary "sufficiency" criteria that any theory has to meet. Whether a theory cannot explain fact A is irrelevant if it is highly useful in explaining facts B-Z.

Oh, come on. Give her six days.

Literal days?

I don't know....

fnxtr said: Oh, come on. Give her six days. Literal days? I don't know....

I respect honest work to provide answers, but I don’t respect dishonest parading of ‘victories’.

— Green

Mike Elzinga said:

I respect honest work to provide answers, but I don’t respect dishonest parading of ‘victories’.

— Green

What honest work do ID/Creationists do? What about the dishonest parading of “victories” that drives ID/Creationists to whip up political grass-roots efforts to get ID/Creationism in the public schools? Green is using the typical word games of the creationists, but still doesn’t understand evolution and science. These word games and his misconceptions and misinformation strongly suggest that he/she is driven by sectarian dogma, not a desire to understand.

Green: It’s been pointed out that the components of the cascade were around in the cell long before phototransduction. I don’t see how this provides a solution at all.

It’s not we don’t know ‘yet’, its exactly what we *do* know that makes evolution on this level so implausible. And if it’s implausible on this level, then how can you ever extrapolate up and say that morphological explanations are plausible?

PvM said:

Green: It’s been pointed out that the components of the cascade were around in the cell long before phototransduction. I don’t see how this provides a solution at all.

That's a problem then because co-option resolves the question that multiple mutations are necessary for a new system to arise, instead, evolution has found a much simpler approach where useful components are re-used as part of a new system.

If women came from a rib, then why are there still ribs?

Green said: It's been pointed out that the components of the cascade were around in the cell long before phototransduction. I don't see how this provides a solution at all.

As I understand it, “green” is arguing that co-option won’t work because opsins have no other uses.

PvM's link goes back to this same thread. Perhaps he meant to link to Blind Mice vs Behe.

Matt Young said: I am sorry, but I can't resist.

If women came from a rib, then why are there still ribs?

Women did not come from a rib. They came from a penile bone known as the baculum. We know this fact because men have ribs, but they do not have baculums. Therefore, the question is meaningless, and the account in Genesis is true.

Green said: You say that we don't know how the phototransduction cascade arose "yet". Then why is the above work described as 'outstanding' and paraded as as a victory against ID & creationsim? Biochemical details is what we've been asking for all along! Not more gene comparisons or morphological descriptions.

Actually, I have had creationists tell me that Genesis is proved because men have one fewer pair of ribs than women do! This is apparently a Well Known Fact.

— DaveH

On that note has anyone asked Green whether he/she agrees with Michael Behe that life on Earth has a ~4 billion year history, and that humans share common ancestors with most or all other species?

And yet, through the emergence of all these major new sources of data, not a single reliable observation in any of these fields has contradicted the general hypothesis that eyes are the product of evolutionary mechanisms. Quite the opposite, as the picture of how this probably occurred in different lineages is become increasingly clear thanks in large part to this rapidly expanding body of knowledge. Gaps remain, of course, which is why it’s an intriguing field of inquiry. But the notion of waiting until every last detail is known before accepting the basic historical reality badly misinterprets the nature of science and scientific evidence.

Pete Dunkelberg said: PvM's link goes back to this same thread. Perhaps he meant to link to Blind Mice vs Behe.

RBH said: The special issue editor, T. Ryan Gregory, has some remarks about this thread. He points out that the focus of this thread is missing an important point:

And yet, through the emergence of all these major new sources of data, not a single reliable observation in any of these fields has contradicted the general hypothesis that eyes are the product of evolutionary mechanisms. Quite the opposite, as the picture of how this probably occurred in different lineages is become increasingly clear thanks in large part to this rapidly expanding body of knowledge. Gaps remain, of course, which is why it’s an intriguing field of inquiry. But the notion of waiting until every last detail is known before accepting the basic historical reality badly misinterprets the nature of science and scientific evidence.

RBH said: For the Google impaired (Green?) Oakley's blog is here. The post is not yet up. I'll flag it here when it's up.

Green said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, opsin has no other function in the cell except photoreception. So in order for opsin to persist in the cell (once it has arisen by mutation), it must be simultaneously coupled with a mutation enabling it to associate with retinal, and thereby become light sensitive. Furthermore, once light sensitive, the rhodopsin complex needs proteins that restore it to its original conformation after it has been activated.

Most likely the answer would be like people in our ‘Bible belt’ are said to respond to mention of Jesus making water into wine: “We know, and we don’t like it”.

— Rolf

Todd Oakley said:

Green said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, opsin has no other function in the cell except photoreception. So in order for opsin to persist in the cell (once it has arisen by mutation), it must be simultaneously coupled with a mutation enabling it to associate with retinal, and thereby become light sensitive. Furthermore, once light sensitive, the rhodopsin complex needs proteins that restore it to its original conformation after it has been activated.

Quick correction of Green. Many opsins are "Bi-stable", one wavelength changes conformation one way (cis-trans), another wavelength changes conformation the other way (trans-cis). It makes sense that bi-stable opsins were the ancestral state, and that once duplicated, different opsins assumed the job of vision, versus regenerating the retinal. Note also that light sensitivity probably arose separately in the lineage leading to C. elegans. Although the mechanism is not yet known, retinal may not be involved at all. See post here: http://evolutionarynovelty.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolutionary-origin-of-light-sensitive.html

Delicious Irony : Todd Oakley : Vision Researcher

In regard to Gregory's comment above:

"And yet, through the emergence of all these major new sources of data, not a single reliable observation in any of these fields has contradicted the general hypothesis that eyes are the product of evolutionary mechanisms. Quite the opposite, as the picture of how this probably occurred in different lineages is become increasingly clear thanks in large part to this rapidly expanding body of knowledge. Gaps remain, of course, which is why it’s an intriguing field of inquiry. But the notion of waiting until every last detail is known before accepting the basic historical reality badly misinterprets the nature of science and scientific evidence."

1. There are many CONFLICTING principles of common descent that are observable AND testable. Go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html

2. We aren't "waiting until every last detail is known before accepting the basic historical reality."
ANY detail would be a good start.

3. The article "The Evolution of Complex Organs" is just another philosophical argument the concludes with, "The precise details of how, when, and how many times a particular biological organ has evolved may never be know with absolute certainty ..."

I specifically loved the scientific mechanism of "tinkering" i.e. "bricolage." But, as with all the other mechanisms listed, there is an utter lack of evidence for it creating a complex organ.

4. Go to figure 9 on #371 and see if one of you might give an explanation of the evolution of nerves fibers, eye lens, cornea, iris, retina, and the additional 'wiring' to the brain to interpret the information. Pulling existing features out of thin air doesn't make the scientific cut. Go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

who is your creator said: I specifically loved the scientific mechanism of "tinkering" i.e. "bricolage." But, as with all the other mechanisms listed, there is an utter lack of evidence for it creating a complex organ.

who is your creator said: 1. There are many CONFLICTING principles of common descent that are observable AND testable. Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html

Todd Oakley said:

Green said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, opsin has no other function in the cell except photoreception. So in order for opsin to persist in the cell (once it has arisen by mutation), it must be simultaneously coupled with a mutation enabling it to associate with retinal, and thereby become light sensitive. Furthermore, once light sensitive, the rhodopsin complex needs proteins that restore it to its original conformation after it has been activated.

Quick correction of Green. Many opsins are "Bi-stable", one wavelength changes conformation one way (cis-trans), another wavelength changes conformation the other way (trans-cis). It makes sense that bi-stable opsins were the ancestral state, and that once duplicated, different opsins assumed the job of vision, versus regenerating the retinal. Note also that light sensitivity probably arose separately in the lineage leading to C. elegans. Although the mechanism is not yet known, retinal may not be involved at all. See post here: http://evolutionarynovelty.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolutionary-origin-of-light-sensitive.html

Green:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I’m aware, opsin has no other function in the cell except photoreception.

So, are you ready to admit that you've been corrected? If not, I'll just continue to believe that your original "presumption" regarding opsin(s) was simply a lie.

Cheers!

RBH said:

who is your creator said: 1. There are many CONFLICTING principles of common descent that are observable AND testable. Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html

Looks to me like Quote Mine Central married to Misrepresentation Prime.

SunSpiker said: Delicious Irony : Todd Oakley : Vision Researcher

rescuer said: the vertebrate eye, is a long-time favorite of creationists and IDists. They happily quote Darwin’s notorious introductory sentence about it: .... who does this specifically?

In regard to RBH's comment:

"And there is your fundamental dishonesty. By saying “utter lack of evidence” you imply that you are open to, and willing to be persuaded by evidence. Which you are not. Just be honest and say “I don’t care about ‘evidence’, nothing will convince me , I know the truth and it’s not evolution” End of story. We know that’s how you see things, it would be good for all of us if you recognized that."

You must have forgotten to include your "evidence." Please post and we'll look at it.

You might replace your "quote-mining" and "dishonesty" whining with some actual facts. If you prefer to stick with tirades, it only reflects the fact that you have no competing evidence.

The facts are all over the place, but you have to be willing to get off your lazy ass and go read about them. Try Talkorigins, it pretty much has it all there.

who is your creator said: In regard to RBH's comment: "And there is your fundamental dishonesty. By saying “utter lack of evidence” you imply that you are open to, and willing to be persuaded by evidence. Which you are not. Just be honest and say “I don’t care about ‘evidence’, nothing will convince me , I know the truth and it’s not evolution” End of story. We know that’s how you see things, it would be good for all of us if you recognized that."

You must have forgotten to include your "evidence." Please post and we'll look at it.

You might replace your "quote-mining" and "dishonesty" whining with some actual facts. If you prefer to stick with tirades, it only reflects the fact that you have no competing evidence.

b. Evolution predicts that life began as simple organisms, but complexity has been rule, not exception, in the earliest known fossils: * “Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn't imagine the earliest critter could be so complex.” http://www.livescience.com/animals/080410-first-animal.html

Actually, I have had creationists tell me that Genesis is proved because men have one fewer pair of ribs than women do! This is apparently a Well Known Fact.

who is your creator said: You might replace your "quote-mining" and "dishonesty" whining with some actual facts. If you prefer to stick with tirades, it only reflects the fact that you have no competing evidence.

At the risk of becoming serious, Mr. H reminded me of an anecdote that I read many years ago, I think probably in The Physics Teacher. A student related the Well Known Fact to her teacher, who told her to count the ribs on two skeletons, one male and one female. The student returned shortly and said something like, “See, I told you so.” The teacher instructed her to go back and count very, very carefully. The student returned again and said, “Are you sure that one is female?”

1. There are many CONFLICTING principles of common descent that are observable AND testable.

— who is your creator

rescuer said: the vertebrate eye, is a long-time favorite of creationists and IDists. They happily quote Darwin’s notorious introductory sentence about it: .... who does this specifically?

First Green says:

Biochemical details is what we’ve been asking for all along!

But then he/she says:

The problem is not a lack of knowledge, the problem is a conceptual one.

Is someone talking out of both ends of his/her ass? This commenter sounds like Martin Cothran and some other creationists, who pretend to demand specific information and/or proof, then run away from the information by pretending it's all based on some "concept" that's either wrong or subject to subjective change without notice. Remember "presuppositional bias?"

I question Green's honesty.

...this argument is that based on what we do know, eye evolution is unlikely.

Okay...have any IDers proposed any specific alternative mechanism by which eyes might be created? Have they shown said alternative mechanism to be MORE likely than evolution?

I notice "who is your creator" demanded evidence, got a reference to a specific site in response...and has not been heard from since. Why am I not surprised?

Green said: So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation. Descriptions of morphological change, comparisons of genes, crystallins, etc. all skirt the issue if it cannot be shown how the phototransduction cascade itself arose.

As to the one less rib thing. I actually had a teacher tell her students this and one came to her teacher and asked if it was true. That second teacher came to me and asked. Scary that two science teachers both had it wrong. I pointed out that our skeleton was a male and had her count the ribs and compare it to a known female skeleton. So that one less rib thing is alive and well even in the 21st century. I like the baculum thing though. Question; do apes have baculums? If not did the designer give theirs away to make lady apes?

mary hunter said: As to the one less rib thing. I actually had a teacher tell her students this and one came to her teacher and asked if it was true. That second teacher came to me and asked. Scary that two science teachers both had it wrong. I pointed out that our skeleton was a male and had her count the ribs and compare it to a known female skeleton. So that one less rib thing is alive and well even in the 21st century. I like the baculum thing though. Question; do apes have baculums? If not did the designer give theirs away to make lady apes?

Interesting.

The "eye" argument of Behe, Dembski, Morris, Hovind, and others is no doubt the most egregious example of the "design of the gaps" argument.

I am happy about this issue. Also, it is good that it is free. Part of the difficulty in overcoming ID is that ID has more appeal to the masses. After all, it is grassroots/church based. Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish!

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Todd Oakley and T. Ryan Gregory have some additional remarks on Oakley's blog.

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish! NS

notedscholar said: Part of the difficulty in overcoming ID is that ID has more appeal to the masses. After all, it is grassroots/church based. Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish! http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

RBH said: Todd Oakley and T. Ryan Gregory have some additional remarks on Oakley's blog.

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish!

Interesting article about Islam/Muslim anti-evolutionary efforts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081211/sc_livescience/evolutionargumentsheadedforislamicworld

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish!

Ravilyn Sanders said:

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish!

It is a very unfair accusation calling the scientists snobbish or arrogant or elitist. Very often I find scientists and science supporters prefacing whatever point they make with disclaimers like "I am not a mathematician ... " "This is not my specialty ..." "I am not an expert in this subject ..." etc. Genuinely hinting they could be wrong. But some of the preachers, especially of the fire and brimstone variety, are the most arrogant I have come across. They will admit God is greater than them, but for all practical purposes, no one but God is superior to them. They claim to know more science than scientists, more law than lawyers and judges, more sociology, more psychology and more governance than professionals of these fields. And when these preachers say,"I am no lawyer" they usually follow it up with a zinger that hints they know better. It is high time science supporters take on the blatant arrogance of some of the preachers.

Stanton said:

Ravilyn Sanders said:

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not, and is often elitist and snobbish!

It is a very unfair accusation calling the scientists snobbish or arrogant or elitist. Very often I find scientists and science supporters prefacing whatever point they make with disclaimers like "I am not a mathematician ... " "This is not my specialty ..." "I am not an expert in this subject ..." etc. Genuinely hinting they could be wrong. But some of the preachers, especially of the fire and brimstone variety, are the most arrogant I have come across. They will admit God is greater than them, but for all practical purposes, no one but God is superior to them. They claim to know more science than scientists, more law than lawyers and judges, more sociology, more psychology and more governance than professionals of these fields. And when these preachers say,"I am no lawyer" they usually follow it up with a zinger that hints they know better. It is high time science supporters take on the blatant arrogance of some of the preachers.

And yet, when you ask these people if they want to live in a world without science or its products (e.g., the Internet), where the most profound mystery of life would be whether or not one could find enough food to eat later that day, they look at you like you've just sprouted a second head.

That makes an even sixty.

Bobby the sockpuppet said: I think you are confusing preachers with people who understand science yet doubt Darwinism. Are you really saying that a person cannot understand science AND doubt Darwinism??

There are some fundies who don’t need anything and they will support ID no matter what.

— Ravilyn Sanders

I just stumbled into this thread and have read little of it; and I don't know most of the terminology involved in this particular example; but isn't Green's question at the third post, and his/her followups, just another, more erudite-sounding example of the "what good is half a wing?" objection?

What's up with the whole creationist generic response of "yeah, you have evidence for your position, but it's not good enough for me" line of logic?

I suggest a new logical fallacy called Argumentum ad pertinax. (argument from stubborness =p)

Jim said: What's up with the whole creationist generic response of "yeah, you have evidence for your position, but it's not good enough for me" line of logic? I suggest a new logical fallacy called Argumentum ad pertinax. (argument from stubborness =p)

notedscholar said: Science most certainly is not [grassroots/church based], and is often elitist and snobbish!

hopeful said:

Stanton said: And yet, when you ask people if they want to live in a world without science or its products (e.g., the Internet), where the most profound mystery of life would be whether or not one could find enough food to eat later that day, they look at you like you've just sprouted a second head.

I think you are confusing preachers with people who understand science yet doubt Darwinism. Are you really saying that a person cannot understand science AND doubt Darwinism??

Forgot about the whole lake of fire thing. Makes you wonder why the idea of free will is so popular in creationism circles.

I mean, you have freedom to choose, by if every choice but one ends in hell, what kind of freedom is that? So orwellian...

MPW said: I just stumbled into this thread and have read little of it; and I don't know most of the terminology involved in this particular example; but isn't Green's question at the third post, and his/her followups, just another, more erudite-sounding example of the "what good is half a wing?" objection?

who is your creator said: You must have forgotten to include your "evidence." Please post and we'll look at it. You might replace your "quote-mining" and "dishonesty" whining with some actual facts. If you prefer to stick with tirades, it only reflects the fact that you have no competing evidence.

MPW said: I just stumbled into this thread and have read little of it; and I don't know most of the terminology involved in this particular example; but isn't Green's question at the third post, and his/her followups, just another, more erudite-sounding example of the "what good is half a wing?" objection?

Ravilyn Sanders said: But some of the preachers, especially of the fire and brimstone variety, are the most arrogant I have come across. They will admit God is greater than them, but for all practical purposes, no one but God is superior to them. They claim to know more science than scientists, more law than lawyers and judges, more sociology, more psychology and more governance than professionals of these fields.

hopeful said: Are you really saying that a person cannot understand science AND doubt Darwinism??

Science Avenger said:

Bobby hopeful said: Are you really saying that a person cannot understand science AND doubt Darwinism??

I've never met any person, or read the writings of any person, who doesn't accept evolution, who also didn't make grotesque errors when discussing the subject. Whether it is possible for such a person to do so remains to be seen.

I’ll say it yet again. If “fundies” were the only problem, there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, for every one of them, there are 2 or 3 “non-fundies” who fall for some anti-evolution garbage, be it the nonexistent “conspiracy” of mainstream scientists, the “fairness” of teaching “the controversy” or mindlessly parroted sound bites like “I hear the jury’s still out.”

MPW said: I just stumbled into this thread and have read little of it; and I don't know most of the terminology involved in this particular example; but isn't Green's question at the third post, and his/her followups, just another, more erudite-sounding example of the "what good is half a wing?" objection?

I’ve never met any person, or read the writings of any person, who doesn’t accept evolution, who also didn’t make grotesque errors when discussing the subject. Whether it is possible for such a person to do so remains to be seen

...What grotesque errors does Berlinski make?

Indeed. I’ve destroyed many an apologist in debates over whether God exists by asking them if it were possible, with however small probability, that they were mistaken about God’s existence, I grant willingly such a possibility with my lack of belief. Yet many of them can’t say it, can’t get “I could be wrong” to come out of their mouth. I didn’t have to say much else, the completely unreasonable closedmindedness they displayed destroyed any credibility they had. Yet we unbelievers are supposed to be the arrogant ones.

-----Can you answer a question:

-----'Does God exist?'

happydays said: -----Can you answer a question: -----'Does God exist?'

Is this consistent failure to see that there is evidence for evolution a consequence of the Explanatory Filter? Since it presumably separates out the explanations, it must follow that what's left will have had all the evidence taken out.... :)

Green said: Yeah I read Oakley and Gregory's articles on eye evolution a couple of weeks ago. Unfortuantely neither address the crux of the issue: namely the origin of the biochemical phototransduction cascade. To be fair, Oakley's article (the 'Black Box' one) at least tries to give some biochemical details. But it only scratches the surface by suggesting a potential origin of the opsin protein. Unfortunately the origin of a new opsin protein is not equivalent to the origin of an entire phototransduction cascade. So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation. Descriptions of morphological change, comparisons of genes, crystallins, etc. all skirt the issue if it cannot be shown how the phototransduction cascade itself arose.

Now that the style is obvious regardless of the name, I recommend that no one reply to our resident troll, but just to the general audience about him if necessary. If you must respond to the PRATTs, (points refuted a thousand times) a simple RTFF (read the fine FAQs) should do.

BTW, I don't mean "Green," who seems for real, and not participating lately.

Dave Lovell said:

happydays said: -----Can you answer a question: -----'Does God exist?'

Hi Jobby. I see no evidence that he does, and until I do there are more interesting and important things to think about.

Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

happydays said:

Dave Lovell said:

happydays said: -----Can you answer a question: -----'Does God exist?'

Hi Jobby. I see no evidence that he does, and until I do there are more interesting and important things to think about.

"I’ve destroyed many an apologist in debates over whether God exists by asking them if it were possible, with however small probability" --- yet you have spend a lot of time debating about something you find unimportant and uninteresting?

Flint said: Most Americans have little understanding of science, a little better notion of religious faith (they go to church most Sundays),

Sixty one and counting. What's next, Fonzie? This duffus really needs to get a new routine. Someone should make a list of all the aliases for documentation purposes. Maybe Wayne is still out there. Other than that, it's fun to ignore someone unimportant and uninteresting.

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things.

DS said: Sixty one and counting. What's next, Fonzie? This duffus really needs to get a new routine. Someone should make a list of all the aliases for documentation purposes. Maybe Wayne is still out there. Other than that, it's fun to ignore someone unimportant and uninteresting.

Sixty one and counting. What’s next, Fonzie?

— DS

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

phantomreader42 said:

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

So, are you claiming that these tactics are WRONG? If so, why do you not criticise the creationists for using them? It's a strange phenomenon, isn't it? Creationists blatantly lie, without a hint of remorse. When their lies are pointed out, in detail, they keep repeating them, knowing they are false, and still showing no remorse for bearing false witness. But accuse them of raping piglets, and they get all offended, almost as if they saw something wrong with making shit up! Creationists endlessly and falsely accuse all scientists of being Nazis, make entire movies for this sole purpose. They keep it up without missing a beat no matter how many times it is pointed out that Hitler was a christian creationist, he used christianity as a rallying cry, the murderers he employed had "Gott Mitt Uns" (God is with us) on their uniforms, and the blueprint for the Holocaust was provided by christian theologian Martin Luther, along with centuries of christian anti-semitism. But make the exact same accusation against creationists, with the actual facts on your side, and THEN they whine about Godwin's Law! Creationists make endless demands for evidence, never even bother to look when that evidence is provided, then move the goalposts. But ask a creationist for the slightest speck of evidence in support of his own position, and he flees in abject terror, spewing bullshit to distract from the fact that he has NOTHING, nothing that even LOOKS like it might be evidence! Creationists whine about censorship, but every creationist website is heavily censored! Creationists scream about how horribly persecuted they are by not being allowed to indoctrinate other people's children using other people's tax money, but when you point out the DEATH THREATS they make against those who dare question them and call them out for their DOCUMENTED intention of forcing their religion on others, they call you a conspiracy theorist, then turn around and claim the death threats were all false-flag operations and the Wedge Document is a forgery, all as part of a vast conspiracy against THEM! What is wrong with these people's brains that they can't recognize their own hypocrisy, no matter how many times it's pointed out? It could be an interesting experiment, to see if they can be forced to recognize anything wrong in their own tactics. Of course, I suspect they'll justify it under the same principle as Lying For Jesus™: as long as you're acting in the name of The One True Cause™, you're exempt from all morality. The same justification used for just about every atrocity in human history, but that fact will be lost on them as well.

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

Phantomreader42 said: What is wrong with these people’s brains that they can’t recognize their own hypocrisy, no matter how many times it’s pointed out?

Science Avenger said:

Commonly Sensible said: Applying a little common sense solves most things. In a lot of cases the evolutionists are lowering themselves to the same reasonless tactics that the creationists use.

Really? Rattle off a few of the reasonless tactics creationists use. Examples would be nice.

happydays said: ...What grotesque errors does Berlinski make?

SWT said:

Science Avenger said: Really? Rattle off a few of the reasonless tactics creationists use. Examples would be nice.

I'm totally confused by this comment in the context of your past posting -- would you please clarify your point here?

Every time creationism has been held accountable it has lost. Three Supreme Court decisions, Kitzmiller, various school board elections, and so forth. Not once has it succeeded.

— Doc Bill

happydays said: I’ve never met any person, or read the writings of any person, who doesn’t accept evolution, who also didn’t make grotesque errors when discussing the subject. Whether it is possible for such a person to do so remains to be seen ...What grotesque errors does Berlinski make?

Frank J said:

Every time creationism has been held accountable it has lost. Three Supreme Court decisions, Kitzmiller, various school board elections, and so forth. Not once has it succeeded.

— Doc Bill

Actually, creationism did win once (Scopes), ironically when its demand was the most ambitious - to ban the teaching of evolution. As it steadily retreated to "teach evolution and creationism," then to "teach evolution and ID, but don't identify the designer or say what he/she/it did, when or how," it kept losing, and losing more dramatically than ever. In the last case (Dover) the judge even anticipated the next strategy, "teach evolution only, but 'critically analyze' it," and ruled against that too, noting that it's the same "breathtaking inanity" as the other scams. So here's a radical suggestion for creationists and "don't call me a creationist" IDers: Try again to demand that evolution not be taught. Then state your better alternative in designer-free terms of "whats" whens" and "hows," and support it completely independent of your perceived "weaknesses" of evolution. Not only does history support that your chances can only improve, think about this too: when real scientists have a better theory, do they demand that only the old one (e.g. ether or phlogiston) be taught along with a "critical analysis?" Of course not. They simply support the better theory on its own strengths, and let the old one fade into the footnotes. C'mon, you can do it - unless you know that your "theories" have no merit - as I strongly suspect.

Science Avenger said:

SWT said:

Science Avenger said: Really? Rattle off a few of the reasonless tactics creationists use. Examples would be nice.

I'm totally confused by this comment in the context of your past posting -- would you please clarify your point here?

Sure. Creationists play a rhetorical game where they simultaneously claim their side isn't doing X, yet when they see an opportunity to criticize the other side for doing so, they change their view 180 degrees and suddenly they are indeed doing X, but scientists are too, so the scientists are hypocrites. We see this a lot in politics as well: We aren't doing that, but if we are, your side is doing it worse. The way to take away that wiggle room is to force them to commit one way or another as to what their side is doing before entertaining any discussion of what the other side is doing. So, TTOMN has claimed that both scientists and creationists are using reasonless tactics. I want to hear about the reasonless tactics of the creationists first. Then we'll move on to what the scientists are doing.

Science Avenger said:

SWT said:

Science Avenger said: Really? Rattle off a few of the reasonless tactics creationists use. Examples would be nice.

I'm totally confused by this comment in the context of your past posting -- would you please clarify your point here?

Sure. Creationists play a rhetorical game where they simultaneously claim their side isn't doing X, yet when they see an opportunity to criticize the other side for doing so, they change their view 180 degrees and suddenly they are indeed doing X, but scientists are too, so the scientists are hypocrites. We see this a lot in politics as well: We aren't doing that, but if we are, your side is doing it worse. The way to take away that wiggle room is to force them to commit one way or another as to what their side is doing before entertaining any discussion of what the other side is doing. So, TTOMN has claimed that both scientists and creationists are using reasonless tactics. I want to hear about the reasonless tactics of the creationists first. Then we'll move on to what the scientists are doing.

A new “Scopes” law would simply be taken to court and rejected before it could ever be implemented.

— D. P. Robin