Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 5 years ago

how can something as delicate as an eye, which has about 500+megapixels evolve by random chance, when even after 100 years we can only..?

.. make a camera that can capture at most 50 mega pixels, and we know FOR SURE that was not done by chance, but a lot of work went into that!

15 Answers

  • MARK
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    Your error is that you claim that eyes evolved randomly and purely by change. This is not the case. A favourite, but entirely false analogy, beloved of creationists, is that if a hurrcane blew through a junk yard it would result in throwing together 1000s of parts resulting in a commercial jet airliner. This analogy is entirely false. It bears no resemblance to how evolution works.

    Mutations occur in genes. The mutations are random. This does NOT mean they occur in a choatic, unpredicatbel way. Random means that mutations occur irrespective of whether they are advantageous or deleterious.

    Another glaring error that is made by creationists is that they propose ridiculous ideas such as an animal with no eye at all giving birth to an offspring with a fully formed and functioning eye. This is not what scientists claim and it forms no part of the theory of evolution.

    Evolution occurs gradually over an incredibly long time. If a mutation arises there follows non-random selection. If mutations confer an advantage that individual may live longer, reach reproductive age, reproduce and leave offspring. If whatever gave it a phenotype that granted it an advantage is going to be passed on to its offspring it has to be genetic and inheritable. Whatever variation exists in a population must persist. The variation must be gentic. It must be heritable. Over time the frequency of an allele conferring some advanatge will increase in a population. It is to population that evolution happens, not individuals.

    The eye was not created by any god, supernatural being or intelligent designer. If it was a designer then the adjective intelligent is not apposite. There are numerous flaws in the mammalian eye. It is back-to-front and produces an upside-down image that the brain has to correct.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Evolution took millions of years.

    We had time.

    The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

    Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

    In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    It can't, and that is a great point. No matter how much they deny it, Irreducible complexity is a sound argument.

    Any functioning system needs some amount of components to work. In reality, complex systems, like the eye, would take millions or billions of mutations. None of those mutations are "selected for" until the eye actually works, which denies the whole principle of selective advantage.

    Not to mention that many complex systems would have to evolve together, and the fact that there are no transitional forms left behind in the fossil record of each stage as it transitioned from one species to another

  • CRR
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    Evolutionists claim that complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times. The eye is so complex it is improbable it evolved even once within evolutionary time. Even the light sensitive spot that most models of eye evolution begin with involves sophisticated biochemistry, but just grant me the miraculous pre-existence of that and I can hypothesize by intelligent design an evolutionary pathway!

    The human eye is not "perfect" for any given situation but represents a supremely well engineered solution to the many competing requirements that it must meet. There are even good design reasons for it being what some call backwardly wired.

    Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure”:

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    It wasn't "random chance". It was a very well understood and guided process.

    We can make cameras that are more than 50 mega-pixels. I mean, just take ten 50megapixel cameras and you have 500megapixels. Like, duh. It just becomes prohibitively expensive and suffers from diminishing returns.

    BUT you provide an interesting analogy. Lets look at the "evolution" of the digital camera. It started out as simply light sensors that could tell "on/off" which then became black and white cameras and then color low-resolution cameras and keep "evolving" into the 50 megapixel cameras we see today (and the technology is still improving!) THAT is how evolution works. Gradual change over time.

  • CC
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

  • 5 years ago

    The eye is only about 6 color megapixels, but has some pretty clever "software" to image-process that.

    It did not evolve by random chance. Natural selection tends to keep what works.

  • 5 years ago

    There is an interesting side note to the Irreducible Complexity argument: If it could stand-up to competent argument and cross examination, it might have carried the day for the Intelligent Design side at the Dover, PA trial in 2005. But, it could not. Michael Bebe, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry and a proponent of Irreducible Complexity, got his head handed to him under cross examination. He was made to look like an incompetent fool. Not only that, other proponents of Intelligent Design refused to even be expert witnesses for the ID side. ID got crushed under the sheer weight of evidence the evolution brought to bear, The entire transcript of the trial is available on the internet, down load and read for yourself:

    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

    Court United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

    Full case name Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

    Argued September 26, 2005–November 4, 2005

    Decided December 20 2005

    Citation(s) 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

    Evolution was proven to be a valid, well supported by observation and prediction, science under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Creation Science / Intelligent Design was proven to NOT be science, but rather religion and completely lacking in supporting evidence, observation, or prediction.

    Judge was a practicing Christian.

    This was THE test of: Can Creationism be taught as science in public schools. Both sides were well funded, sent their best Expert Witnesses and their best lawyers. The Creationist side was not just beaten, they were crushed under the weight of evidence the evolution side presented. Every argument the Creationists put forward was shot down easily. By contrast, the evolution side's evidence, in some cases, was so compelling, the Creationists had no rebuttal and could not even cross-examine. That is solid evidence that is so good it cannot be challenged.

    You should ask any supporter of ID/Creation Theory where their mentors were in 2005. If they have a valid argument, they were badly needed.

  • 5 years ago

    FFS. The eye is not irreducibly complex. It's not particularly impressive, when you consider that it uses individual molecules as light sensors rather than photovoltaic cells. It didn't evolve "by random chance", which is one of the stupidest lies creationists use. And a few billion years is a metric FUCKTON longer than our 100 years of technological development.

    Lying sack of dogshit.

  • Who
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    to say "it evolved by random chance" shows you dont have a clue how evolution works

    It didnt

    it "evolved" - creatures with "better" eyes evolved in preference to those with less good eyes - and so it went on

    (there are creatures today that dont have "eyes" as such but can "see" a lot better that we can in their environment)

    some creatures "see" by "smell" some by "taste"

    (bats for example can see using sound in complete darkness)

    (our eye for example is pretty crappy - its suffers from "persistence of vision"

    that is- it continues to "see" a picture even when the picture has gone

    If it didnt then films.videos would not work and appear as "moving pictures"

    neither films nor videos is there continuous movement but 1 picture followed a short time later in "frames"

    (for NTSC its 30 frames each second)

    that is- it shows 1 still picture then very litle time later another still picture

    So all that actually happens is the eye "sees" 1 stationary picture then another and then another and so on

    But the brain sees the sequence as if it was continuous movement

    If the eye/brain did not suffer from persistence of vision then we would see - 1 stationary picture (like a photo) then another then another

    it would not appear to move at all - it would just appear to be a sequence of photos

    (shame "anonymous dont know anything about fossilisation

    the eye that we know today dont fossilise

    the earliest eye we know about (300 mill years ago) was chrystaline and therefore did fossilise, but that dont mean that a modern type eye could not have evolved before but just didnt fossilise

    the other shame is that "anonymous" dont grasp that you can "argue" as much as you like it dont prove a damned thing - evidence does that

    Until ID believers have some then its just their wishful thinking

    such evidence would be

    1) evidence a designer exists

    2) that things were in fact "designed"

    3) How things were designed

    All they have so far is that THEY dont know how things evolved therefore it must have been designed

    they therefore assume 1) assume 2) and dont have clue about 3)

    thats not science talking - thats ignorance)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.