|
Author
|
Topic: Darwin's greatest challenge tackled
|
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 01. November 2004 13:33
This post has been moved to the Literature Review, where it should have originally been posted.
IP: Logged
|
|
Eric Anderson
Member
Member # 1431
|
posted 01. November 2004 20:18
This news report is an excellent example of overblown evolutionary hype and agrandizement of research results far beyond what the data actually allow anyone to conclude. Ah, yes, we all want to be the one that comes across a revolutionary research result, and showing how the vertebrate eye evolved would certainly make a Nobel Prizer out of anyone.
What the researchers have discovered, is that an opsin, a light sensitive molecule, in the brain of Platynereis dumerilii is very similar to an opsin molecule in the rods and cones of vertebrate eyes. No doubt this is an interesting and newsworthy discovery.
But let's look at the evolutionary spin, that is at best wildly inaccurate, and at worst, downright deceptive:
"Scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL] have now tackled Darwin's major challenge in an evolutionary study published this week in the journal Science. They have elucidated the evolutionary origin of the human eye."
and
"When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."
And let's not forget the tagline at the beginning of the news report:
"Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved."
The truth is that the research results are largely irrelevant to explaining the origin of the eye. Further, the results do not even address, much less refute, the challenges raised by evolutionary critics from Darwin's day to more recent discussions of the eye, such as Behe's.
We are all given to flights of fancy at times, but let's keep it out of the research, folks.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. November 2004 21:23
Eric
I agree that the claims seem a bit overblown. On the other hand it is interesting that the eye itself comes from the brain as is so obvious from its embryonic origin. I like the research because it indicates the great antiquity of the molecular basis for vision. It seems that the more we learn from molecular biology the more we see that much of evolution has involved the expression of preformed potentialities. Leo Berg was the first to suggest this: "Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments." Pierre Grasse said much the same thing. I have implemented these insights as part of my "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" which has been presented in the main forum.
IP: Logged
|
|
Vinícius O. Botelho
Member
Member # 1303
|
posted 14. November 2004 09:20
In fact, we could say that the article is just one step toward an explanation on the origin of the eye (I asked for information about where to find the whole paper, maybe it has more specific information). However, even if proved that the eye evolved slowly, it is important to emphasize that its complexity is not the only argument that the IDers may use against the evolutionists. It is also an expression of intersubjectivism and as such the analysis of its creation becomes even more complex.
It is not just the matter of if the eye evolved from a primitive model or not, but of how could this first eye be created. See that its existence is one of the most prominent reasons for us to be talking now. Also, we should not forget that our intersubjectivism has other reasons, which are the development of our tact, smell, hearing, and taste too, which are intrinsically related to the eye's problem here presented. The discussion here is applicable for all these senses.
I am talking about all beings, not only about the human one. How can we interact in a reality if we are independent realities? One cannot know what the other thinks, but he or she are known by a third "person" outside of us that is reality itself, which we were not supposed to know about; however, we know that reality exists and this only due to our senses. As an example, I will quote the post "The Copenhagen Interpretation", by Jerry D.Bauer:
quote:
The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce. Heisenberg had written in his original paper: 'I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it.
See that the path depends on our eyes to be seen. It does not exist by itself.
The eye is not simply a complex organ, but the reason for our "existence", for the development of our society. Its creation made us know that reality exists, that others exist. Then, even whether it evolved from a first model, its primitive existence, by itself, is a discussion of ID. See that ID's design is intelligent and the most intelligent design is the most efficient one. Therefore, saw that it is undeniable that evolution exists, it becomes very possible that the most efficient ID uses the fact that the beings evolve to create this first eye, giving a primitive intersubjectivism to the beings but knowing that this would evolve to a very more complex and efficient one.
Thus, to solve this question we must then know what is the probability of this first eye to be created, what is only possible to be known (the estimatives are not so well accurate as we would need, but this is the only possibility, at least I think, we have) by its genetic structure. Hence, I think the case is interesting and should be studied further. Of course, I think that the article is indeed overblown, it is impossible to make such impressing statements by now, but the discovery may help us to understand more about the eye's and the intersubjectivism's origin.
[ 14. November 2004, 09:40: Message edited by: Vinícius O. Botelho ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic