Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position." - Pierre Grasse

No, not really. The effects of laser surgery and the reattachment of retinas are not heritable. Well, think about this. It may be that we are indeed "defeating natural selection" in that some people who would otherwise have died of poor eyesight are surviving instead. But that would cause the accumulation of inferior genes, which is something we wouldn't want. Our influence on our "evolutionary destiny" by "defeating natural selection" is the exact opposite of what we'd want for our species, so by "defeating natural selection" we are not so much "controlling our evolutionary destiny" as fucking it up.To use an analogy, you might as well say that by causing global warming (if we are, let's not get into that) we are "controlling our climatic destiny".The results therefore are not, as you state, that ... Intelligence is at work, certainly. But we are not designing our gene pool thereby, since the effect we are having on it is the exact opposite of what we'd choose if we could.

You misunderstand me.I do not wish that people with bad eyesight should not pass on their genes. For one thing, I have bad eyesight, and for another thing I am opposed to any compulsory program of eugenics.But you and I would like, if possible, for subsequent generations to have better eyesight than mine. And the fact is that providing me with glasses and not sterilizing me will work contrary to that goal. I don't say that this is a bad thing, because I like having glasses and I like having testicles. But it is still true that such policies will thwart natural selection by producing future generations with poorer eyesight.We can't have it both ways. The way we are having it will in fact tend to reduce the visual acuity of future generations, and as such is not what we would want if only we could choose how good their eyesight would be just by clicking our fingers and saying a magic word rather than by a system of compulsory eugenics.

How would one oppose a voluntary program of eugenics? If I personally decided that it would be better for future generations that I shouldn't breed, would you force me to have sex without contraception? Would you do the same if I thought my genes were fine and dandy but I just didn't want the expense of having kids? How would you tell the difference? Would I be hauled in front of an inquisitor and strapped to a lie-detector? Fortunately, as your antieugenic inquisition does not exist, I am under no obligation to explain to you or anyone else how many children I want and why. That was in fact posted by someone else, namely Taq in message #98.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Statistically, this is pretty much unaffected by how large the population is or whether it is growing or shinking so long as it is not small. If it's small, other factors come in to play. Since there are about six billion of us humans and no sign of a downturn, then for the first rough go at doing the math we may as well assume that we are infinite in number and will stay that way.

Yeah, I just realized ... how the heck did we get from the evolution of the eye to me explaining why eugenics is a bad idea? I mean, seriously, how? I'm going to have to read the thread over and find out.Dr Adequate's Law: As the length of any internet discussion increases, so the probability that any post in that thread will relate to the OP tends to 0.

Yes indeed. I'll ask you my question again. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature? No. In order to say that evolution has been at work on the eye, I need to say that evolution has been at work on the eye; not to say something which is not true, which I do not believe, and which would falsify the theory of evolution.Have you forgotten what we're arguing about? The whole point the evolutionists were trying to make, the whole reason we raised the issue of the diversity of types of eye in nature, was to point out that although they are dissimilar across the whole natural order, they are suspiciously similar within clades. The whole point of us mentioning the obvious fact that there are many different kinds of eye is that we can then point out that (for example) all mammals have minor variations on the same kind. One more time. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature? If you can, please describe them to us.Put up or shut up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What do you mean, "admitting"? We're trumpeting it. And what do you mean "progress"? We've been trumpeting it ever since we raised the issue of eye diversity. That was the whole point of bringing it up. There is vast diversity across the whole of life, but relative uniformity within smaller clades --- just as we would expect from the theory of evolution. Let me ask you again. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than those actually found in nature? If so, please describe them to us. If you cannot, then please stop telling fatuous falsehoods about how they are "not diverse" and "very imited in options", as you are not fooling anyone.

Well, let me ask you a question. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature?If so, please describe them to us.Sorry to shout, but you seem to be going deaf.

I guess you're looking at a different fossil record from the one paleontologists are looking at, in which they see the primitive eyes of primitive chordates.

Any mistakes you wish to make about speech are off-topic; this thread is about vision.

Quite so. The author of the piece actually believes that exaption contradicts "the basis of modern evolutionary theory". How? Well, he takes natural selection to be the basis of the theory, which is not too bad, and then he thinks that exaptions contradict it ... by ... uh ... not being it? By being produced by it, but not qua exaption? It's a muddled piece of writing produced by a linguist and not a biologist.Anyway, back to the eye, if anyone wants to discuss it.

No. My digital camera can "remember" things when it's turned off. Compare that ecological footprint (0) with the cost of keeping me alive. Of course, I do other things too, but the point stands: our brains need power just to keep something the same --- the brain cells involved need a constant supply of nutrients for me to remember something which is in fact constant like what a tiger looks like or the first five digits of pi.

No it doesn't, this is just something creationists have made up. And if it did, this would hardly support the generalization that "the fossil record" shows this given that the fossil record is not limited to the Cambrian Period .

No, they should all be recognizably mammalian eyes due to being evolved from the same common ancestor.Please see if you can find a criticism of the theory of evolution rather than a criticism of some crazy shit that you've made up in your head. Perhaps you could answer this simple question: Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature?If so, please describe them to us.