Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of the Eye and Senses (formerly "Just Some Thoughts")
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 17 (198368)
04-11-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
04-07-2005 6:35 PM


quote:
Why do ciliate researchers insist on viewing voltage gated ionic chanels as "neuron" like and insist on discussing the equivalent of neuropeptide transmitters in that branch below fungi,plants and animals?
And what do neuropeptide transmitters cause? A decrease in membrane potential through gated ion channels.
I can't find the source at this time, but I remember reading that some researchers have hypothesized that sight may have risen through flagellate/ciliate endosymbiosis.
quote:
But yes, it would be a strech to call chrophyll an "EYE". But if the whole thing is fishy well....
I would go down a level to urochordates. More specifically, larval ascidians which have the earliest form of chordate eyes (occeli to be exact). Again, my memory fails and I can't find a good pic of it right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2005 6:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 04-11-2005 7:03 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 17 (198382)
04-11-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
04-11-2005 5:01 PM


I havent seen that reference but i have a hard time not including any light trap in that materialistic content. What becomes somewhat questionable is certain issues in the history of the "cell theory" if a ciliate/flagellate is considered a pre-eye for then the presumption of evolution seems to mask former disagreement about what the cells were(bark vs reproductive organ parts).
I well recall the whole thing with the cell being about whether they were simply a bag of chemicals or rather not as data from the 70s showed and accumulated. I guess I cant bring myself to say what Behe or me might see inside a cell is enough complexity to justify the difference I see between a fish eye and a hamster's. Fish eyes just look dead to me and I cant see a whole paramecium unless i put my eye up to a microscope.
I guess you're probably correct if I was going to argue for the ciliates I would have to continue to your level. In my older memory then if the cell is bag then these single cells, plants, and flagelltes cant be eyes any way I would have thought.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-11-2005 06:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 04-11-2005 5:01 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024