The folks at the NSCE and Expelled Exposed have done it again: made a great instructional video about evolution. This one is how an eye can evolve, and is so easy to understand that it should be shown to every single school student in the country, and indeed the world.
-
What happened to Bad Astronomy???
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
-
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising -
-
People who like me!
-
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space - DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
May 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Well, the eye’s have it.
This is an amazingly brilliant, easy to follow demonstration of how science can debunk typical ID gibberish.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:30 am
For a second there, I thought they were gonna tread on “Recapitulation” there, near the end.
And they didn’t even bring up the fact that the light-sensitive parts of the rods and cones on the Nautilus face towards the light, while they face away from the light in mammals. Further evidence that if there were a “Designer” who made the eye, it sure was below the intelligence of Homer Simpson. I mean, who the heck plugs things in backwards. And the blind spot; what a stupid idea.
No, i mean it, blind spots in the eye are a simply stupid idea.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
My employer has blocked imbedded YouTube videos, and my sadness has increased.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am
John Allen Paulos wrote a very insightful piece on how irreducible complexity relates to familiar economic processes: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,1564619,00.html
May 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Sometimes you just have to chalk it up to your average creationists’ pathological inability to understand incremental changes. Their complaints about this sort of thing always struck me as ironic considering the fact that they’re the only ones who claim such biological features appeared magically out of nowhere.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Now I see.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Is there an ecco ecco co co o o o o here?
Next I’ll visit the betentacled one and find a post on dark matter and/or the LHC …
May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Simple, clear, concise. Great video.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I don’t see how anybody could question the evolution of vision. I mean, as the video pointed out, even the ability to determine light and dark is an improvement and each step along the way is an incremental improvement (which could have happened in several different ways).
If I were a creationist, I would be questioning flight! “Almost” doesn’t really cut it in this case. Take the “flying squirrel”. It doesn’t fly. It doesn’t really even glide so much as stretch a jump and slow down enough to survive the landing! An evolutionary dead end that does not lead to true flight.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
@Mark Martin
Evolution = The Economics of Species
Capitalism = The Survival of the Profitest
Same general concept (an “invisible hand”), two different processes.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
That … would have worked better if I could spell …
May 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Flight.
Ah, that’s ability was solved by insects, dinosaurs, mammals, and most famously, birds. You’d have to tackle each example to make any sort of creationist clam. Then there’s the fact that some birds are flightless despite the presence of wings. Or why some insects that have non-functioning wings. Why do some mammals fly when most others don’t? Some question of dinosaurs.
Sure, scientists don’t know every detail.
Creationists (and IDers) would rather live in total ignorance of either the answers or the questions.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Shakespeare’s line “me thinks thou doth protest too much …” comes to mind.
And it’s done so with almost “religious fervor.”
Real Creationists talk design, Evolutionists talk construction. Is it any wonder there’s no middle ground?
Okay, go ahead, let the character assassination begin!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Garrett,
Do you have something against showing an empirical argument of plausibility?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Richard H.,
Did you read Paulos’ essay?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Tell that to the bats.
~David D.G.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Yes, Creationist doth protest too much.
As some keep saying, since they protest so much, there must be something about Evolution, huh?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I read the essay. The connection between Capitalism and Evolution have been made. I read William H. Calvin’s “A Brain for All Seasons” and he made the flat out assertion that Darwin co-opted the overall concept of Adam Smith’s theory and applied it to the survival of species, and thus to Natural Selection.
Makes sense, not sure if it was really co-opted that way, but Natural Selection does make sense that way.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Yes, Matt Garrett, when confronted with an actual claim, do what creationists always do: shift the argument, more the goalposts, or do whatever it takes to distract people from the fact that you have no evidence at all to back up any creationist claims, and that all the evidence points to evolution being correct.
Sigh.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Matt Garrett -
besides your pre-emptive “defense” against a “character assasination”, is there an actual fact or point of debate anywhere in there?
As if I didn’t already know the answer to that.
Seriously… if you want to engage in a discussion over the facts presented or present a differing factual point of view with an actual reference for debate, then please, by all means do so.
But if you’re just going to keep popping up in these threads to make snarky, pointless, factually deficient comments simply for the sake of being argumentative… just don’t waste your or our time.
“Real Creationists talk design, Evolutionists talk construction. Is it any wonder there’s no middle ground?”
First, that is an incorrect statement. Creationists do both. We’ve already coverd that with you about a dozen times. For them, design = construction.
And second, why do you keep insisting there should be a middle ground? Over and over again we try to explain to you, Matt Garrett, that you can not discuss Evolution and Creationism as if they were on equal footing anymore than you can discuss Evolution and transformation by Wizardry on equal footing. One is science, the other is fantasy. There is no middle ground in terms of comparison.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Real Creationists talk
Yep, and that’s about it. Now, if they’d provide a theory and some evidence, they’d actually have something to talk about.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Garrett, seriously, try harder please. Design is there, construction is there, but some people attribute these to natural processes and others attribute them to magical sky fairy. Unfortunately, we have lots of evidence for natural processes and, well, zip, zero, nada evidence for magical sky fairy.
So, we all anxiously await your evidence. Of course we know there won’t be any, there will simply be argument, straw men mostly, and of course lots of other non sequiturs.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
[…] fact, I point you to this video about how an eye evolves, but many people still think an eye is too complex to come from anything other than an intelligent […]
May 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
This is absolutely great!
I don’t know if you saw the article by the American Association of Physics Teachers about what the public perceptions and attitudes about evolution and creationism are, but I just did a write-up of it, and Americans are worse of than you might have even fathomed.
But there’s hope, and I think this video is wonderful!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
This is a *beautiful* response to the silly claims of “irriducible complexity”. And it’s exactly how scientists should respond to so-called “intelligent-design” advocates.
There are no polemics, no shouting. Just really good explanations and evidence. Not only does it refute the claims of the current anti-evolution movement, it also creates excellent teaching tools.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
@Mark Martin
*smacks own forehead*
I just realized now that I’m reading Paulos’s book “Irreligion.”
Paulos can totally rip Creationist arguments of “to improbable to have happen” to shreds. It’s a good book, so far.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Richard H.,
I agree. Paulos is a very sharp, level-headed guy. I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read from his writings. Irreligion is on my to-read list.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Just a minor quibble here: The video says, in essence, that Creationists say the eye is too complex to have evolved, and that scientists say to look at the evidence.
But what I saw in this video wasn’t evidence, but rather an alternative model of light-sensitive patch to patch-in-a-cup to pinhole camera to complex lens system.
I didn’t see much evidence for that model in the video (which, to be fair, was kept pretty short and simple). The evidence listed was A) different mollusk have different variations on eyes, and B) fetal eye development goes follows the progression of the model.
B) is a non sequitur. The way babies develop has nothing to do with how we evolved. It does prove that eyes *can* develop in this way, but does not prove that modern eyes *did* develop in this way from prehistoric photosensitive patches.
A) doesn’t really show any development from one mollusk to another. I see (and I guarantee an ID person will see) different species with different eyes, rather than a progression from simple eyes to complex ones.
I’m not saying that the model is a bad one, but I am saying that this video doesn’t do a particularly good job of showing evidence for the model.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
JD, when you refer to this as an “alternative model”, please describe the model to which this video is an alternative.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Richard: That’s a side track. Obviously the creationist model is “God made it that way; isn’t that awesome.”
I’m not arguing that the creationist model is a good alternative to the scientific model. I’m saying that this video presents very little hard evidence for the gradual development of the eye from light-sensitive patch to lensed system we see here.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
JD,
Ever hear the phrase “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny”?
Stephen Jay Gould wrote about it wonderfully, and it’s online here. Take a look!
Ethan
May 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The creationist’s don’t have a model JD, and it is NOT a sidetrack, it is the core of the argument. If you want substantial evidence for eye development, browse PZ’s site as I believe he did a very good write up about this very topic. And definitely read Stephen Gould as Ethan pointed out. You don’t seem to understand the intended audience for this video.
Now, this is not an ad hominem, but I see you attended Bob Jones University, which makes me somewhat suspicious of your actual intent to learn about evolution. So I’ll just ask you point blank: do you accept evolution and do you honestly want to learn about it, or are you simply throwing up arguments.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@Richard Wolford
I think what JD is trying to get at is that the video presents different eye models, which suggest that the eye could have developed incrementally. However, as he pointed out, it used eyes from different mollusks, which have different eye models. The ID approach would suggest that these were all created in their present form and are unrelated to each other.
As to the bit about the human eye developing in the fetus, an ID approach may argue that, like anything that is built, it goes through different stages of construction, but until it is completed, it does not function as an eye.
What is needed is to show evidence of the development of an eye in succeeding generations of organisms that currently do not have an eye, such as some cave-dwelling critters. If it could be shown that in a given population, some develop light-sensitive patches of cells, then pass that along to their offspring, who eventually develop more and more complex eyes, that would be a nail in the coffin of the irreducible complexity of the eye. Without that evidence, IDists will simply explain away any other examples as just “different designs” with “different functions.”
May 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Ah, but what about non-functioning eyes in cave dwelling animals? Why are eye structures there if they aren’t necessary?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The IDist would probably say that it was designed as a functioning eye, but through “microevolution” the structure was damaged and, therefore, no longer functions as an eye.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Todd, you very well may be correct, but again I’ll reiterate that creationism/ID do not have models; poof god did it is not a model. So my argument was that this video is not an alternative to anything as there is no scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.
The mollusks do indeed show different types of eyes, which shows that these types of eyes do indeed exist. Seeing slightly better eyes develop and then being passed on to offspring is then not a very far stretch. I’d also argue that ANY evidence would be explained away by creationists; delusion is a powerful drug.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
This whole concept of micro/macro evolution is so ridiculous it is hard to know where to begin; as was said before, it is the same as believing in inches yet not miles. The only difference between micro/macro evolution is time; small changes (micro evolution) over great periods of time produce drastic changes (macro evolution). These are the same people who believe a dog should be giving birth to a cat according to evolution.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
@Richard
Agreed. It’s the “need to believe” described by James Randi, I think, that is at work in a lot of the ID supporters. To accept the evidence for evolution would be to admit that they were wrong, which is always a difficult thing to do.
That said, the video does do a good job of suggesting that the eye can possibly develop incrementally, but it stops short of providing hard, fast evidence that that has, indeed, occurred. Unfortunately, that leaves the video open to contradiction (albeit rather inane). When it comes to claiming evidence of some scientific claims, the best way to drive the point home against the ID arguments, I feel, is with a sledgehammer (metaphorically speaking, of course).
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
What I find fascinating is the fact that during embryonic development, a small number of take charge and sets the stage for later development. Turn on the wrong gene, at the wrong time, in the wrong place and there could be extra digits, limbs, or absence of either.
Then to find out that those genes are found in more “primitive” species. (Yeah, that’s in quotations because no species is really primitive, but rather good enough outlive the dinosaurs, and such.)
May 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I agree with Richard H. at #2 that the video treads uncomfortably close to recapitulation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Instead I would have liked to have seen it put in terms of evo-devo, showing how small changes in the development of structures can arise from mutations in the genetic code. Again, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evodevo
May 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
JD,
That video was not so much an explanation step by step of the evolution of the eye as a refutation of the old creationist argument “what good is a 1/10 of an eye”.
That’s why they didn’t use fossils but creatures living nowadays, to show that the different “steps”, the different “proto-eyes” are all useful in a way and bring an evolutionary advantage to the mussel, the squid or what have you.
In that light, the video does a good job showing that there is a plausible way for eyes to develop through natural selection.
As for B, the reality is a bit more complex than “ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny” and, to be frank, I was surprised to see the argument by development in there. You may want to ask an evo/devo specialist.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I may have been a bit slow there…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@Todd
Definitely agreed, which is why I think the intended audience is why the evidence is not overwhelming. The True Believers (TM) need the sledgehammer approach, but there are so many who are on the fence that just need to be shown evidence, not the really hard evidence, but just enough to get them interested. That being said, point well taken about lack of hard evidence. If you showed this video in a high school, for instance, a lot of the hard evidence could well be over the head of the students. Instead of explaining things, we could confuse them even more
May 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Arnaud, that was a really good explanation of the video.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Phil, I wish you would leave the ID-bashing to the regular group of militant atheists. Maybe start a “Bad Biology” blog or something.
It’s your blog, sure, do whatever you like. But I always enjoyed coming to Bad Astronomy to look to the heavens.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
An evolutionist would say the nearly same thing, but that “micro/macro-evolution” are pretty much the same thing.
In perpetual darkness, eyes were no longer necessary for survival, but other senses were. Those with better hearing, say, were having a slightly better chance at surviving and reproducing than those who still had great sight. At the same time, the genes for the eyes of the better-hearing animals became less and less reliable. There was no self-correcting mechanism (or, rather light and the need for eyesight) to save this.
After some time (a few thousand years, or so) you have a cave-dwelling species with atrophied eyes with its closest living relative just outside the cave with fully-functioning eyes. Because these two species no longer interbreed, they, over time, became two different species.
It’s only a brilliant scientist specializing in evo-devo who inserts the older gene into the blind species who succeeds in getting those eyes to work in the lab.
So far, I don’t know of any similar results from ID proponents.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Richard H. said:
“Ah, but what about non-functioning eyes in cave dwelling animals? Why are eye structures there if they aren’t necessary?”
For the same reason humans still have their appendices. The appendix does nothing nowadays to contribute the body’s well-being, and occasionally it’s even a potentially lethal liability. In terms of evolutionary principles, the reason we still have it is because on average it doesn’t get us killed before we generate offspring. Given enough opportunities for incremental mutations, the appendix may someday disappear altogether.
It’s the same for blind cave fish. They still have vestigial eyes because they don’t interfere with their overall tendency to procreate. If the caves environments were to change to the effect that non-working eyes become a major liability-for instance if food became scarce and the eyes consumed more than their fair share of nutrients-then the lineages still carrying vestigial eyes could quickly become extinct. In that case, only those lineages without the eyes would remain.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I wish I were one of the lucky humans born without an appendix: I had to have mine removed when I was a kid. The scar is still ugly.
To the appendix I point and say: if there were a designer, it sure the hell has no intelligence.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
@Barry
I repectfully submit that the easiest way satisfy yourself in this regard is simply not read the posts that don’t pertain to your intrests… problem solved on your end.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Shall we gather a list of stupid “designs”
1. The human appendix, easily infected.
2. The blind spot in the human eye,
3. Backwards facing light-sensitive cells,
4. The hole in the male human abdomen, for the descent of the testes (can someone say, “hernia prone”?)
May 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
5. Wisdom Teeth… darn things hurt like hell when they come in and haven’t been needed since we used to chew on raw seeds and grains…
May 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Richard: Todd’s gotten what I was trying to say, that the ID proponents wouldn’t have any trouble dismantling this video’s arguments.
Regarding BJU: I understand your suspicion. I was raised in a creationist, fundamentalist Christian home. During my time at BJU, I became disillusioned with the version of Christianity that I was taught, especially after reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, which gave me a new perspective on the cruelties God ordered in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua.
When I realized that God ordered the Israelites to do acts of supreme evil–for example, “Kill all the men, women, and children of the Amalekites–I realized that either the Bible was inaccurate in recording God’s commands (i.e. someone was manipulating the Israelite army) or that God wasn’t the good being the Psalms described him as. In either case, the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God, which means that the whole argument of the fundamentalist Christians falls apart.
This freed me from the belief that God created the world in six days. Unfortunately, I now realize that I know very little about science, since I was taught both at home and at my Christian schools that evolution was nonsense. At the moment, therefore, I’m inclined to defer to the experts in the field, which is that life evolved over time by natural processes.
As far as models go: I think that to the average undecided person, they assume that either the current theory of evolution is right or that the ID people are right. They aren’t sizing it up scientifically, but rather on a group dynamics level: lots of people believe one thing, and lots of people believe this other thing instead, and one of the two groups is right and the other is wrong.
So, if the ID people can poke holes in the arguments of evolution–even if they aren’t valid arguments, even if their “model” consists entirely of “And then a miracle occurred”–they look stronger. The undecideds think “Ah! If evolution is wrong, then ID must be right” rather than “That model of evolution is wrong, so there must be a different scientific explanation.”
If you’re trying to convince people, you have to stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a politician.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
6. The human skeleton. (bad knees, bad backs…)
May 7th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Arnaud: Ah, that makes sense. I hadn’t figured out why they were referring to four different modern mollusks, rather than showing the progression from simple to complex in one mollusk. Your explanation makes sense, that they were demonstrating that a light-sensitive patch is better than no eyes at all.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
JD, thanks for clearing that up. You make a valid point, but the problem is that if we think like a politician and just try to win people over with fancy videos, we don’t educate. We have to present facts and poke holes in anything that refutes evolution (without evidence that is; evidence which refutes evolution, while currently non-existant, could not be ignored).
The other thing to realize is that the ID folks will poke holes in anything, regardless of what it may be. This video isn’t for them, it’s for those who want to learn. If more evidence is wanted, and hopefully it will be wanted, they can simply refer to other sources. A better approach would be to follow this video with information on where to find more information. There is no arguing with a creationist id cdesign proponentist; they have already made up their minds. We have to educate, and playing politician isn’t a good approach. Good marketing, getting the word out, that’s all fine, but we have to stick to the science. In other words, what does the evidence show?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
JD: re: the light-sensitive patch, you may want to query starfish eyes. This shows in great detail how a little bit of light is better than none at all. If I recall correctly, evolutionary development of light-sensitive patches were a primary driver of the pre-Cambrian explosion. Someone more familiar correct me if I’m wrong please.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
So, we should start pointing out the deficiencies of ID, then?
Maybe, something like:
“We know that people of faith love their god. We also know that they believe their god is all-powerful.
But we know that the idea of Intelligent Design is shoddy and sloppy at best. In fact, the design of the human body is flawed, imperfect, and often times laughable. This points to a “designer” who is not very intelligent and not all-powerful.
Certainly, people of faith would not want this shoddy theory (ID) to be associated with their all-powerful god.”
Would that do as a political argument? It’s not great logic or passable rhetoric, but does it serve a political point?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Richard H.
I think this would be found to be insulting; I come from a fundamentalist home, but broke free. If you’ve never been that close to these types, you may not fully understand. They believe their god is perfect and they will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. This is why this type of argument, a political one, doesn’t seem to be too effective. They will never accept that something about the human body is defective; they believe they are the loving creation of their god and are perfect. That argument implies that their god is not perfect, whether they were created or whether they evolved. Showing people the science, showing them the evidence, will only win over those on the fence; the True Believers (TM) are simply beyond help sometimes.
You have no idea how glad I am to be away from all of that; it’s why I get so passionate and is why I pursued academics so much.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
A better quote from Willie S: “Methinks Agamemnon hath not so much brain as ear wax.” And NOTHING is going to change the minds of the fervent believers: not reason, not threats, not argument - nothing. Why waste the time on these folks?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@Richard Wolford
I come from a Jehovah Witness background. Certainly not the same as your background. I believed in it even when I got out of high school and it wasn’t until my 20’s that I broke free, too.
But then, they professed skepticism towards other versions of Christianity, but not to their own peculiar brand. I finally found evidence that was never offered to JW members, and turned my skepticism towards the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Then on to Christianity itself. I had great affinity for science in all that time, but stopped short of the more uncomfortable ones.
Now, I gorge myself on information; information from the experts of various fields. I got books from the library, bought what books I could through Scientific American Book club (before it was taken over by Scientific American), or from the local bookstore.
(Incidentally, I was also inclined to believe the paranormal crap, too. You know, like Bigfoot, Nostradamus, Atlantis as a real place, and alien abductions. But that’s a different thread)
As for the “political statement” I wrote, I find most such statements insulting (such as Mrs. Clinton’s stance on “elitist” experts) but people still seem to eat such candy-coated turds anyway. Perhaps it needs to be more vague and less specific? Make it say nothing at all but still pointing out ID flaws.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I’m still not sure what a creationist even is. I’ve met people that have no argument with evolution, yet still believe in creation to some degree. Then there are scientist’s that don’t discount the possibility of creation as a first cause. Then there are scientist’s that use the term ‘creation’ poetically. Then there are the creationists, that clearly hate science. There are also creationist’s that use science to further their egotistical goals, ignoring parts of it if it does not fit with their world view. ( I am assuming it’s the latter two you hate so much.)
Due to this ‘hatred’ of ‘creationist’s’, I know of many people that although holding a viewpoint of respecting all that science has to offer, while at the same time respecting their religious creation beliefs, avoid being labeled with the term ‘creationist’, mainly due to it now being a dirty word.
Has it just become a bullying word for Atheist’s to use to belittle anyone that doesn’t share their atheistic beliefs?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@ Mark Martin
It’s not actually true that the appendix does nothing. It acts as a safe haven for many beneficial intestinal bacteria.
Also not entirely true. The important point is that evolution is always a work in progress, not something that guarantees organism will always be perfectly adapted to their environment.
There’s actually a cost associated with developing eyes, and it’s one that’s more than worth it in an environment with light. In the dark, though, individuals with fully functional eyes will tend to be outcompeted by individuals that spend fewer resources developing eyes, so eventually, we can expect to see a complete disappearing of the eyes, but since the cost of having eyes generally isn’t huge, it’ll be a slow process.
Having eyes in the dark is less than optimal, but it’s not suboptimal enough for individuals to not reproduce 100% of the time.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Short:
The Intelligent Designer sneezed and screwed up on this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/science/08platypus.html
May 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“Having eyes in the dark is less than optimal, but it’s not suboptimal enough for individuals to not reproduce 100% of the time.”
That’s pretty much what I said.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
@Richard Wolford
Been there, done that, glad I got out, too. Having been one of the deluded, I can get rather passionate about fighting such lack of reason and logic sometimes, though I’m working at toning down my…well…tone.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@ Cairnavorn
I’m betting you pulled this off of wikipedia… which is fine. It shows you’re willing to do some research into an issue… but a closer look would reveal that this assertion is hotly disputed. This possibility has been proposed by some in the medical and bilogical communtiy, but as of yet there’s no direct evidence supporting this theory.
It is still largely accepted in the biological and medical community that the appendix is completely vestigial and has no known purpose. Perhaps we will find firm evidence supporting this claim, but to assert this supposition as fact is not really accurate.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
that should read “biological community”…
darnit, BA… must we continue to endure these spelling errors?
/weekly rant for spell check
May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Quasidog,
It’s not hatred of creationists, it’s hatred of their lies. And one of those lies is that the creationists themselves are the target rather than their lies. Another lie is that if you believe in evolution you must therefore be an atheist.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
@quasidog,
for me it’s the latter two groups that I fear and loathe, yes. The fear because they seem to have the power to damage the education system so much, and the loathing because they are so eager to do just that.
I don’t think atheists are responible for giving creationism a bad reputation. That’s the work of the religious nutcases.
Should “moderately religious” people really allow these people to keep on doing what they do?
And if they DO allow the nutcases to represent them, isn’t that their own responsibility? I can’t imagine you could blame the atheists for that.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
All species are intermediate species.
J/P=?
May 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I’m not so fond of the video as IMO it would have been better with more debunking and less discussion of the science. Ah, well, it works.
Don’t forget fish: freshwater hatchetfish can make powered flights to evade predators.
Evolution is defined as observable hereditary variation (of characters) over time, and it it is only in such observable mechanisms such as selection and evo-devo that one discuss functions.
Creationists however talk lies, as evidenced here.
Possible nitpick: AFAIK biologists define vestigial as homologous characters with loss of (most of) original function, not as devoid of function, so “completely vestigial” should be meaningless or misleading. AFAIU such characters can retain some original function, retain non-primary functions, or been coopted for new function, while being (”completely”) vestigial.
And as terms like “completely vestigial” and “purpose” may suggest just-so adaptionism and non-evolutionary teleology, and additionally can be “coopted” by creationists, they aren’t as suitable as “function” IMHO.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
It is not a non sequitur.
If the theory predicts that there are evolutionary pathways, and it does, it is sufficient to show a possible pathway to test it. So as growth shows such a cellular pathway (modulo maternal hormones et cetera minor details) it is a validation through a test.
For such reasons (but mainly because of the similar and easy to understand A) pathway) creationists such as Behe started to criticize interlocking complexity of cellular components instead. As the cellular machinery is heritable along with the genome at fertilization, the B) pathway is different, which creationists take advantage of in their shell game of hiding the bleeding obvious.
Not a non sequitur. If the theory predicts that there are evolutionary pathways, and it does, it is sufficient to show a possible pathway to test it. So as growth shows such a cellular pathway (modulo maternal hormones et cetera) it is a validation through a test.
For such reasons (but mainly because of the similar and easy to understand A) pathway) creationists such as Behe started to criticize interlocking complexity of cellular components instead. As the cellular machinery is heritable along with the genome at fertilization, the B) pathway is different, which creationists take advantage of in their shell game of hiding the bleeding obvious.
Not sure what you mean here.
The evolutionary pathway is validated through homologous characters from ancestral to derived forms, not through an unbroken lineage. This is quite the same way that the fossil record is validated, from overlapping or non-overlapping populations of the actual sparse record, not from a dense imaginary record.
The creationist objection is besides the point of that particular test validation, or phylogenetic trees what so ever. Trees as nested hierarchies aren’t just a straight branch.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Sorry about the bad editing of my last comment.
Also, the last (A) pathway should be “The evolved pathway is validated through homologous characters”, as we are discussing knowledge of the historical pathway here.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
@Celtic_evolution: “I repectfully submit that the easiest way satisfy yourself in this regard is simply not read the posts that don’t pertain to your intrests… problem solved on your end.”
True dat. But the ID-bashing is now even infesting nice posts like the Nazi moon base stuff.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
7. The fact that our retina is covered by the blood vessels that give it nutrients.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
@ Torbjorn Larsson
I humbly acquiesce to your nitpick, and would thusly re-phrase my statement:
It is still largely accepted in the biological and medical community that the appendix is vestigial and has no known function…
That is probably more accurate to my point.
Who says pedantry is needless?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I meant to link this:
It is still largely accepted in the biological and medical community that the appendix is vestigial and has no known function
May 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
@ Barry -
Huh? Not sure what you’re referring to… just got done reading through that thread and other than a couple of sarcastic references to Ben Stein (which have more to do with his ” scientists sent Jews to the gas chambers” idiocy than his ID beliefs), I really don’t see what you’re talking about.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
With regard to the “backwards” sensitive cells (I’m not a vision researcher mind you, just slightly obsessed with the subject):
In the part of our eye where we resolve the most details (a portion of our fovea called the foveola), the L and M cones (which are very similar in sensitivities) are stretched a great deal, and packed very close, giving a very high resolution (S cones and rods are simply absent in this area). The size of these cells, interestingly enough, corresponds roughly to the size required to make them waveguides for optical light around the peak frequencies these cones are sensitive to. This waveguide design channels the light towards the light sensitive portions of the cells, where there is plenty of pigment to pick it up.
Now, the way the pigment proteins (opsins) work is that they are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies, not a specific one. This allows us to not miss light of particular frequencies within the spectrum. Light at the peak frequency is simply more likely to trigger the opsins to cause stimulation, but light off of the peak can still trigger a cell. The L cones, in particular, are sensitive across the entire spectrum (L+M, indeed, is our overall light metric–our white/black process; note the conspicuous absence of S cones in this function).
One of the problems we have to deal with, with our basic eye layout, is that our eyes have a single convex lens. Light, then, is focused through this lens on our retinas. Light of different frequencies focuses differently based on the physics involved (bluer light bends more than redder light), which leads to the problem of chromatic abberation (that is, object details becoming fuzzy due to different focal points of different frequencies of light reflected from it). This is a major problem when we need to resolve a lot of detail about objects in the external world.
Our vision design handles this chromatic abberation issue in a number of ways. L and M’s sensitivities being close together helps (we use a difference metric–L-M–to see red, so L’s actual peak is only yellowish-green, and overall it’s pretty similar to M). L is also sensitive throughout the entire spectrum, dropping off more slowly in the higher wavelengths than M (which allows our L-M “opponent” function, measuring red/green, to be a “middle”/”end” metric for measuring colors). S’s only function is to help characterize short/long wavelengths.
This leads to a problem near our foveolas. L and M are used to resolve detail, and L’s pigment needs to be sensitive throughout the spectrum to maximize our color utility (to provide the “middle”/”end” metric for color measurements). Since L’s pigment is sensitive throughout the entire spectrum, focused bluer light will still trigger the same component (less likely, but this is a ramp off–it would have an effect similar to a blur filter). This hampers our ability to see sharp details in objects (especially white ones).
But that is where the waveguide design brings a huge advantage. Waveguides are sensitive to a small range of frequencies–beyond this, they won’t carry light down the tube. And, lo and behold, picking out particular frequencies is exactly what we need to do in order to remove this chromatic abberation effect in the critical part of our eyes where we need this detail. The way this works is that you take these highly packed cones in our foveola, shaped like waveguide, and put the pigments way at the back, where only the frequencies you’re interested in will tend to get carried. The bluer light simply hits the sides, and doesn’t get a chance to hit the light sensitive portions.
The moral of the story–in the area of our eyes where it counts the most, the pigments are in the correct place. So kindly remove this from your imperfect design list.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:51 am
‘The moral of the story–in the area of our eyes where it counts the most, the pigments are in the correct place. So kindly remove this from your imperfect design list.’
Why?
An Octopus eye still has a better design, Wouldn’t the human eye be better with the same layout as the Octopus eye?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:32 am
I wear glasses.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Captain Swoop:
You seem to be misinterpreting something. When I say “kindly remove this from the imperfection list”, I’m referring specifically to the claim that our eye design is backwards because the pigments are at the back (and not, as it seems you’re taking it, that our eyes are perfect).
That having been said, however:
“An Octopus eye still has a better design, Wouldn’t the human eye be better with the same layout as the Octopus eye?”
I beg to differ. What makes the octopus eyes better than the human eyes? Is it the question begging “forwards” design? Lack of a blind spot? But aren’t you leaving out a tiny little detail in the comparison list–color vision (which octopuses lack)? Then again, octopuses can detect polarization (then again, so can we, though not nearly as well).
Given the opportunity to trade eyes with an octopus, I’ll select the human eye hands down. If you want to make me drool, you should perhaps put stomatopod vision on the table instead.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I never said trade eyes.
Why doesn’t the human eye have the good bits of the Octopus eye?
Surely if it had been designed by the same person it would have the same construction and function? Whgy would you give an Octoups better features than a Human unless you are an Octopoid designer?
We have differences because our eyes evolved independantly, we can only inherit what our ancestors had, It’s a long way back since we had a common ancestor with an Octopus.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
@Captain Swoop
Well, clearly the Intelligent Designer(s) has a team of contractors working under him/her/it/them, each interpreting the draft plans differently for their projects.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Captain Swoop:
I’m not sure you’re getting the big picture here.
The listing above contains this particular entry:
Richard H: “Shall we gather a list of stupid “designs” … 3. Backwards facing light-sensitive cells”
It is this claim that is being questioned. Back facing light-sensitive cells are not “backwards” (backwards in this context implies that a reversal results in an improvement, but here we have a case where a reversal results in worse vision, not better vision). The specifics directly involve the feature of color vision (if humans didn’t have color vision, the location of the pigments wouldn’t be such an issue). I wrote a very lengthy, detailed, and factually accurate (if not, simply correct me) explanation for why this is the case.
Connect the dots now, please. I didn’t bring up color vision as yet another random better feature the human eyes have over octopus eyes. Color vision and back facing pigments go together. I also never claimed that you did say something about trading eyes (and am therefore baffled why you would rebut this way), but the point to the trade scenario is precisely to bring up a realistic metric of “better”. Using this metric, human vision (with the color vision, improved by the specific chromatic abberation reducing back facing pigments) is better than octopus vision (with the forward facing pigments, and no color vision).
Therefore:
“Why would you give an Octoups better features than a Human unless you are an Octopoid designer?”
…makes no sense. Taking the specific feature of forward facing pigments in octopus vision, and adding that to human color vision, results in a visual design that is worse than both human and octopus vision.
Defending evolution is nowhere near as important as defending scientific thinking, so should a falsifiable claim come up (say, that back facing pigments are automatically inferior to forward facing pigments), and be falsified (by pointing out how back facing pigments can actually have positive contributions to better vision than forward facing pigments), you should just toss it out like a good scientist.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Captain Swoop, yy2bggggs…
I think you guys are arguing the same side of different issues.
I think the issue here is really in Richard H’s intitial list of “poorly ‘designed’ features” on the human body… which, in my opinion, was somewhat meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and not necessarily a jumping-off point for a serious debate on designed vs. evolved… that’s how I took it anyhow, and why I included “wisdom teeth” to the list… I was just extending the tongue-in-cheekiness to something I could really do without… just my opinion, anyhow…
May 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@ Mark Hansen,
quote: “It’s not hatred of creationists, it’s hatred of their lies. And one of those lies is that the creationists themselves are the target rather than their lies. Another lie is that if you believe in evolution you must therefore be an atheist.”
Fair enough to hate liars. Lying is stupid. It makes you look like a liar. ;p
But hating ‘creationist liars’ is one thing. Hating someone that might argue certain points of ‘creation vs evolution’ is another thing. Arguing a point is not lying. I can see however that there is a large community of ‘creationist liars’, that is, they have an agenda. They seem to want to trick people into believing their point of view regardless of obvious scientific fact. Hating these sort of ‘creationists’ is fair enough.
I still find it strange that many people still want to bundle all these people together with other people that have a view point regarding creation. (whether you can argue it as right or wrong) The latter are not lying, they are just exploring other ideas. Whether they are right or wrong, calling all ‘creationists’ liars, is a bit unfair. This is the part I have difficulty with. So again I would ask if anyone has a definitive explanation as to what actually constitutes a ‘creationist’. If you argue that it is anyone that believes in creation, fine, but by doing so you need to differentiate between lying creationists with an agenda, and other sorts, like the ones that still support evolutionary theory for example. Sure they might just be wrong, but thats not the point, being wrong does not mean you are lying and have an evil agenda, it just means you are wrong. Hatred in science does not really help anyone. It just panders to the human ego.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
@yy2bggggs
Fascinating bit about the eye.
Yes, the list is tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes you just need to play a bit.
I might’ve responded sooner if the darned spam-filter hadn’t kept spiking me.
Even if the human eye isn’t the best eye in the world, we still have an eye that functions best for us. Of course, it’s an adaptation from our primate ancestors with some modifications that worked best with us.
But the fact remains that each species has body constructs best suited for it. No body design is “optimal”: what works good enough is all that is needed.
As for finally removing the appendix from the human body: all that has to happen is that a great many persons with susceptible appendices (one that would easily clog and get infected) get appendicitis and die before reproduction, thereby leaving the non-appendix humans to breed better. But since we have modern medicine, I got to live.
(Before someone get their thong in a bunch, I am only illustrating a point and in no way condone eugenics. Nor do I advocate a pogrom against appendix-carrying humans.)
Lastly, I wear corrective lenses. Although a separate issue from the light-sensitive pigmens, the fact that my eyes still work despite obvious imperfections (myopia and astigmatism) shows that as long as it works somewhat, it’s good enough for me.
And Paley’s Watchmaker remains an idiot. (I thought I’d let that bit of snark remain.)
May 9th, 2008 at 2:39 am
I am very new to this site, when I say new I have been here before but have only recently started exploring this site. this section in particular holds some interest for me because I have always been interested in the “how did we get here?” question, now first off I am a firm believer that we were created by God and that all things were created by God (so I suppose I do hold a certain bias to the topic), however that said I do still like to think that I have a fairly open mind and don’t “bash” other peoples beliefs or opinions, I like to listen to other peoples opinions and then make my own opinion on that basis. I do a lot of reading on all beliefs (including evolution).
Now I am not a scientist, but I do feel that I am a fairly intelligent individual and feel that logic thought is one of my strong points.
One of my biggest problems is that creationists and evolutionist alike seem to fall into the same trap of bashing the others ideas (most times using the other sides worst arguments i.e. CREATIONIST the second law of thermodynamics proves there is a god. EVOLUTIONIST Radiometric dating proves evolution) and sometimes getting down right personal at the other persons idea “some people attribute these to natural processes and others attribute them to magical sky fairy”, I feel that we are all to arrogant and have this childish need to argue a point that none of us are really equipped to argue, because lets be honest no one can say with 100% surety as to how we were a) created b) evolved, and most times reading between the lines this never seems like an argument to find the truth, it appears more like ” there is a God” “There is not”.
here is the thing, I have read every post here (the video was unavailable, so I could not view it) however this is not a discussion, this seems to be more of a childish game on who is write and who is wrong) I myself am interested in learning, however this seems very counter productive to finding out the truth, to working together, sharing ideas and making our own opinions based on that, and not bashing someone for his opinion.
Some seem to be here for the discussion, to learn more and to share ideas, but can we leave out the snide remarks that are there to boost our own egos?