Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by BenTheMan, Mar 23, 2007.
Whoops, I think you mean 250.000.000 years (about half the zoophyte evolutionary span).
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, a quarter of a million years - 250K. That's it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm, ok but that restricts the original evolution of the "eye", to the end of the Pleistocene...?
I guess it depends how far back you can see something you can call an "eye". Considering there were mammals and dinosaurs who had eyes (or sockets for them), I'd go at least as far back as the Cretaceous. Then I guess fish had eyes, that's further back. Didn't it all start back in the Cambrian? When did eukaryotes show up?
On the face of it this seems astounding. Would you care to provide a citation?
Neither of those links says anything about 250.000 years for the evolution of any eye, except in a computer model. The model is based on various assumptions about initial conditions and the number of generations (iterations) needed to "evolve a good camera eye" , i.e. with a "lens" of some kind.
Eyes are things in animals, not computer models, or did that detail slip past?
And he didn't say it was 250,000 years ago that the first photo-receptor appeared. He said since the first photo-receptor appeared, it took approximately 250,000 years to evolve into what we would call an eye.
Thank you for the references. Unfortunately the full paper costs $30 or more. However, reading around the edges this sounds like a questionable conclusion based upon over simple assumptions. (I kept thinking about the Club of Rome.) It is most certainly not conclusive, though without reading the full paper I won't go so far as to call it flaky.
I don't think the research is flaky or flawed (the model is probably as accurate as they can make it). But the connection to evolution in the actual fossil record is the "flaky" bit, or there's an assumed relevance that isn't really there.
It's interesting, but not bone-rattling. It supports the theory that eyes have evolved multiple times, since it can occur rapidly in the model (0.25m years is rapid), therefore eyes must be multiply advantageous (lots of different genomes have "had a go" at evolving eyes).
The way it was presented was the fuzzy bit - there was certainly an implication that "the eye" is only that old, or something.
You are confusing the timespan in which the eye evolved with how long ago it evolved..
Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?
Have you read the post just before your 2c worth? In which the issue is discussed again (the eye and the computer model)?
I'm not confused about the subject. Thanks all the same for the advice.
P.S. Can you elaborate on "the evolution of the eye". Shouldn't that be "evolution of eyes"?
There is no "the eye".
I knew what he meant.. :shrug:
Actually, I think it's pretty clear he meant that:
Which means, over an interval of so many years, the eye evolved?
Or it means it takes so many years for "the eye" to evolve"?
Did this happen so many years ago, or a lot further back?
Clear as. No need to qualify "over a 250,000 year span" at all. It's obvious what is
Can you, speaking of clarification, qualify what you meant with "the eye"?
Who me ? I never made the statement..
How long did it take for nitpicking to evolve ? If you attend a lecture concerning the structure of the eye, do you "correct" the lecturer and tell him that he should be talking about eyes ? Surely everyone knows that "the eye" represents eyes of a particular class ,if so specified, or structures common to all eyes.
I get the impression that you are overly concerned with abstraction as you seem to use that word so often. In real life we do not continually remind ourselves that the apple we are eating is an abstraction, and the eye with which we see it as an abstraction and so on. Such fine dinstinctions are in the province of philosophy; most of us take a break from it now and then. This discussion is about evolution.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner?
Well this is an interesting turn of events. If you cannot see the problems with this whole thing then...you just cannot see it. That is called indoctrination, for to not even acknowledge the validity of my queries is frightening.
Uh... no offense but I suggest you read up on evolution before continuing in this thread..
Oh dont worry i am not offended. If we acknowledge certain things then we can better understand them and make adjustments accordingly. The longer we are here the more we need to adjust.
I looked at the first like and found that Marshall is re-cycling old, refuted arguments. He is talking of complexity but without allowing for it to develop over millions of years. This is the type of thing one hears from doorknockers.
Is it a co-incidence that he changed his views three years after converting to Christianity ? I think not.
Isnt it interesting how evolution created its own intelligent designers?
Separate names with a comma.