Home » Irreducible Complexity, News » Another take on the irreducibly complex eye: Sea urchins are one big eye

3 Responses to Another take on the irreducibly complex eye: Sea urchins are one big eye

1. 1

   DrRECSeptember 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm

   It seems this “take on the irreducibly complex eye” shows photoreceptors are useful to multicellular animals without a formal eye, and therefore eyes are not irreducibly complex.
2. 2

   bornagain77September 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm

   DrREC, seems you certainly lost no time in skipping right over the wonder that this well research finding, of ‘one big eye’, presents to us. Does even the hint of design ever even enter your mind when you are presented with such a startling surprise as this? ,,,,But to counter your claim that such a wonder found of ‘one big eye’ in the sea urchin is supposedly ‘easy’ for neo-Darwinian processes to accomplish, and that the human eye is therefore ‘no big deal’ for neo-Darwinian processes since, by golly, the sea urchin can see, do you suppose you can calm these irrational doubts in this almighty power of neo-Darwinism that I have, powers that that you seem to be so sure of, and please demonstrate the evolution of even a single opsin gene/protein in any animal that does not have one already? Just one opsin gene/protein???

   Evolution vs. Functional Proteins – Doug Axe – Video
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

   Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
   Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html

   The inverted retina, which neo-Darwinists insisted was “bad design” for decades (since they had no other argument against the ‘miracle’ of the eye), is now found to be of ‘optimal’ design:

   Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
   Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
   Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354274

   Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye – Molecular Animation – video
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562

   Evolution vs The Eye – Miracle Or Mistake? – collected articles
   http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....d25mdjRocQ

   supplemental notes:

   “Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade.”
   Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)

   It is interesting the twist on the theologically based ‘bad design’ argument that DrREC tried to use in this instance, instead of attacking the design of the human eye directly, he tried to hint that the sea urchin’s optical design was somehow sub-optimal and that therefore the human is ‘no big deal’

   This theologically based ‘bad design’ reasoning, that DrREC has unwittingly employed, is even found in Charles Darwin’s book, ‘Origin of Species”;

   Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

   On the Vastness of the Universe
   Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,,
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-362918

   From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought – May 2011
   Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....riter.html

   Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign – Cornelius Hunter – August 2011
   Excerpt: Evolution cannot even explain how a single protein first evolved, let alone the massive biological world that ensued. From biosonar to redwood trees, evolution is left with only just-so stories motivated by the dogma that evolution must be true. That dogma comes from metaphysics,
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-not.html

   etc.. etc.. etc..
3. 3

   Robert ByersSeptember 13, 2011 at 1:35 am

   I have speculated that if there is a creator and a single blueprint for everything then it follow eyesight is just a single equation.
   It should impress that most of biology has just eyes like us and then insects etc have JUST another type of eye.
   This seems unlikely if a creator was creating diferent eyes for different needs or evolution since surely endless oprtions of randonness would make almost as mant results in important ways.
   Why is eye design so sticky?

   It seems like there is just one concept to eyesight.
   So perhaps all seeing ability is simply a single equation and these urchins hint at it.
   why should they be so different from everyone else?
   They are not I suggest.
   They hint at a better idea in understanding how sight works.

   so creationism is shown more likely and possibly a new equation of seeing can lead to healing/fixing sight issues.
   This would be a gain for me.