Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene
...Does anybody have any arguements against the "evolution of the eyeball"?  |
moi?? au contraire!!
The current "arguement"
against the eyeball goes like this: the eyeball is sooo complicated, that if even one molecule [type] is changed or one tiny cell [type] absent, then the whole thing would not work at all. Therefore there is no previous evolutionary step that the eyeball could have evolved from.
This argument is fallacious on several levels and relies primarily on "word play". There are millions of different eyeballs out there in mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, jellyfish, you name it. So obviously there ARE changes you can make in an eye that permits the eye to still function! There are in fact over two dozen distinctly different architectures for eyes--by this I mean "blueprints" for a basic eye structure that could not have evolved from each other!!!
For example, in the human retina, the nervous system attaches to the FRONT of each retinal cell, does a 180 degree "yuey", exits the retinaand then follows the rear of the retina curvature to the optic nerve. In the octopus, the nervous system attaches to the REAR of each retinal cell, and directly exits the retina. I won't give the whole argument here, but a little thought should end with the conclusion that OUR eyeball could NOT have evolved from the octopus eyeball--and vice versa. The architectures are TOO different.
Therefore, the evolutionary invention of the eye must have such a useful "trick" that
it evolved independantly at least two dozen times in the first billion plus years of Life on this planet.
