Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it possible to evolve organs?

Caesar112
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I'm currently re-watching an old show called "Walking With Monsters." I love it, and the other two series as well. However, a question popped in my head while I was watching. Is it really possible to evolve complex organs, for example, the eye? Let me explain. I think we can all agree that it is genetically impossible to mutate eyes in a single generation. It must have taken quite a few. The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work. You can't have a heart without its blood vessels. That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product. Evolution by natural selection states that an individual that mutates a beneficial trait will survive and pass on its gene. But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial? Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together. If someone has a theory, please tell me so that I can evaluate and hopefully come to a solid conclusion. Thanks.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.

Step 5: This leads to an eye.

Step 6: Organisms move onto land. Eye doesn't work as well because it's suited to underwater environment.

Step 7: Organism evolves additional lensing to make up for the dryness of terrestrial life.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 6:24:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:38:30 PM, Caesar112 wrote:
So, I'm currently re-watching an old show called "Walking With Monsters." I love it, and the other two series as well. However, a question popped in my head while I was watching. Is it really possible to evolve complex organs, for example, the eye? Let me explain. I think we can all agree that it is genetically impossible to mutate eyes in a single generation. It must have taken quite a few. The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work. You can't have a heart without its blood vessels. That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product. Evolution by natural selection states that an individual that mutates a beneficial trait will survive and pass on its gene. But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial? Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together. If someone has a theory, please tell me so that I can evaluate and hopefully come to a solid conclusion. Thanks.

Yeah. Just about everything you said is false, namely:

" The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work." <-- False

"That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product." <-- False

"Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together." <-- False

To answer your question:

"But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial?"

Easy: Even having a partially functioning eye gives you an advantage over organisms that are all together blind.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 7:09:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:38:30 PM, Caesar112 wrote:
So, I'm currently re-watching an old show called "Walking With Monsters." I love it, and the other two series as well. However, a question popped in my head while I was watching. Is it really possible to evolve complex organs, for example, the eye? Let me explain. I think we can all agree that it is genetically impossible to mutate eyes in a single generation.

I don't agree. Just one mutation can make a man become a dwarf (acon<x>droplasia), or can make E.coli swift from being glucose-eater to citrate-eater which is crazy. Or can create new Drosophila species.

It must have taken quite a few. The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work. You can't have a heart without its blood vessels. That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product.

No. An organ is not required to have the same fuction (sight) through all its evolutive stages. It just need to have a function, any function, that means an advantage or, at least, not a disadvantage.

Evolution by natural selection states that an individual that mutates a beneficial trait will survive and pass on its gene. But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial? Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together. If someone has a theory, please tell me so that I can evaluate and hopefully come to a solid conclusion. Thanks.

I believe with what I stated before you can already rethink about your argument.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.


But there's still no advantage to the organism, even at your hypothetical step 4. So you have cells reacting to light. How does this help the organism survive or reproduce? It doesn't, obviously. You have to have a complete loop of some sort where light produces some change in specimen behavior. Otherwise it's the same as no sensitivity.

Step 5: This leads to an eye.


Oh, ok, just like that. Never mind the details.

No, come on, this is just story telling. It's just shocking how a whole generation or two has accepted such story telling as having anything whatsoever to do with science.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 1:36:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.


But there's still no advantage to the organism, even at your hypothetical step 4. So you have cells reacting to light. How does this help the organism survive or reproduce? It doesn't, obviously. You have to have a complete loop of some sort where light produces some change in specimen behavior. Otherwise it's the same as no sensitivity.

Step 5: This leads to an eye.


Oh, ok, just like that. Never mind the details.

No, come on, this is just story telling. It's just shocking how a whole generation or two has accepted such story telling as having anything whatsoever to do with science.

You have no imagination. There are many ways that each of those steps can confer an advantage. Just think about the pros and cons of the presence of light in an aquatic environment. Then think about what variations in light intensity can mean, not just presence and absence. What can colors mean? What can an organism do if it can detect fine detail? What can an organism do if it can perceive depth? Do you honestly not know how an organism can benefit from each of those? Is it because you haven't given it any thought, or do you actually think each of those is useless?
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 1:48:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:38:30 PM, Caesar112 wrote:
So, I'm currently re-watching an old show called "Walking With Monsters." I love it, and the other two series as well. However, a question popped in my head while I was watching. Is it really possible to evolve complex organs, for example, the eye? Let me explain. I think we can all agree that it is genetically impossible to mutate eyes in a single generation. It must have taken quite a few. The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work. You can't have a heart without its blood vessels. That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product. Evolution by natural selection states that an individual that mutates a beneficial trait will survive and pass on its gene. But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial? Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together. If someone has a theory, please tell me so that I can evaluate and hopefully come to a solid conclusion. Thanks.

I have a theory. Birds evolved from people. The people who evolved into birds rose above the problems of this world by flying. The way this happened in the same way it is happening today. Do you see how the hair on your arms curves around the conours of your arm? Have you ever enjoyed the feeling of the air flowing through your fingers and lifting your cupped hand when you stick your hand out the car window on a warm summer day? Billions of years ago, before the stone age, the world was much like it was today. The rich people were rich because they were the most adept at survival, and they had cars. The poor people did not have cars. Poor people in the USA are rich compared to most of the world, and most of them have cars.
Wellll.......same as today, billions of years ago the rich people drove around with their arms sticking out in the breeze. Then one day something strange happened. One of the pregnant rich women suddenly gave birth in her car and the baby had feathers on it's arms!!!!! The hairs of the mother had turned into feathers like a bird in response to the pleasures of being lifted in the air while driving on a warm summer day!!!!!! Before long, all of the rich people through a few more generations turned into birds, and the poor people did not have the brains to keep the car factories going and society plunged into the stone age while the birds happily flew above all the fray!!!! Now after a few billion years, a few rich people have evollved out of poverty and invented cars again, and the rich are soon to evolve again!!! They are pushing it with airplanes this time!!! Soon they won't need the planes!!!!! The evidence is the hair on your arms!!!!!!!

Yes, evolution is a joke. It really is no different than this story.
Caesar112
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 2:39:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No. An organ is not required to have the same fuction (sight) through all its evolutive stages. It just need to have a function, any function, that means an advantage or, at least, not a disadvantage.

I never really thought of that. Thanks for explaining it to me.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:02:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Well. Case closed, I guess. Dr. v3nesl saves the day again!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 1:36:08 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.


But there's still no advantage to the organism, even at your hypothetical step 4. So you have cells reacting to light. How does this help the organism survive or reproduce? It doesn't, obviously. You have to have a complete loop of some sort where light produces some change in specimen behavior. Otherwise it's the same as no sensitivity.

Step 5: This leads to an eye.


Oh, ok, just like that. Never mind the details.

No, come on, this is just story telling. It's just shocking how a whole generation or two has accepted such story telling as having anything whatsoever to do with science.

You have no imagination.

Yeah, lol, that's the right word - 'imagination'. That's what I'm saying - this is story telling, not analyzing historical or experimental evidence.

There are many ways that each of those steps can confer an advantage. Just think about the pros and cons of the presence of light in an aquatic environment. Then think about what variations in light intensity can mean,

They don't 'mean' anything until there's a CNS to interpret the messages conveyed by nerves from the light sensors, and some action(s) that can be triggered in response to the interpretation.

Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

...not just presence and absence. What can colors mean? What can an organism do if it can detect fine detail? What can an organism do if it can perceive depth? Do you honestly not know how an organism can benefit from each of those? Is it because you haven't given it any thought, or do you actually think each of those is useless?

And just to repeat myself - you need a whole system for any of this, not just a reactive cell. Not just one but many mutations before light does anything selectable, in other words. There are some things you can't do one piece at a time.
This space for rent.
Rooster1
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:53:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Read the latest (October 2014) Scientific American. There is an interesting article on cells. Cells, it seems, can change their function and form not only from internal forces like DNA messaging, but also from external forces. Simply manipulating the outer walls of cells with pushes, pulls, boundaries etc. affect how the cells proteins go to work to build size, shape, function and form. Placing stem cells from any organ other than the lungs for example, on an apparatus that mimics breathing will cause those cells to morph themselves into lung cells. So to answer your question, yes.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 1:36:08 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.


But there's still no advantage to the organism, even at your hypothetical step 4. So you have cells reacting to light. How does this help the organism survive or reproduce? It doesn't, obviously. You have to have a complete loop of some sort where light produces some change in specimen behavior. Otherwise it's the same as no sensitivity.

Step 5: This leads to an eye.


Oh, ok, just like that. Never mind the details.

No, come on, this is just story telling. It's just shocking how a whole generation or two has accepted such story telling as having anything whatsoever to do with science.

You have no imagination.

Yeah, lol, that's the right word - 'imagination'. That's what I'm saying - this is story telling, not analyzing historical or experimental evidence.

There are many ways that each of those steps can confer an advantage. Just think about the pros and cons of the presence of light in an aquatic environment. Then think about what variations in light intensity can mean,

They don't 'mean' anything until there's a CNS to interpret the messages conveyed by nerves from the light sensors, and some action(s) that can be triggered in response to the interpretation.

Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

...not just presence and absence. What can colors mean? What can an organism do if it can detect fine detail? What can an organism do if it can perceive depth? Do you honestly not know how an organism can benefit from each of those? Is it because you haven't given it any thought, or do you actually think each of those is useless?

And just to repeat myself - you need a whole system for any of this, not just a reactive cell. Not just one but many mutations before light does anything selectable, in other words. There are some things you can't do one piece at a time.

You don't need multiple mutations. All you need is the light sensitivity mutation to cause a response of any kind within the otherwise normal organism. If that means a protein changes and triggers an existing system, like chemotaxis, then that's enough. So a single mutation can cause an existing system to act differently, conferring an advantage, and then future generations could have other mutations that use the original mutation.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 5:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 2:39:53 PM, Caesar112 wrote:
No. An organ is not required to have the same fuction (sight) through all its evolutive stages. It just need to have a function, any function, that means an advantage or, at least, not a disadvantage.

I never really thought of that. Thanks for explaining it to me.

You are welcome, it is a common misconception of evolution. Too often are eye and flagellum accused of not being functional if they are not complete, while ignoring they were not necessarily for sight or locomotion in previous evolution stages.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 6:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:38:30 PM, Caesar112 wrote:
So, I'm currently re-watching an old show called "Walking With Monsters." I love it, and the other two series as well. However, a question popped in my head while I was watching. Is it really possible to evolve complex organs, for example, the eye? Let me explain. I think we can all agree that it is genetically impossible to mutate eyes in a single generation. It must have taken quite a few. The thing about complex organ structures is that all the parts need to be functioning in order for it to work. You can't have a heart without its blood vessels. That being said, even if over the generations, a species slowly evolves part by part until it finally reaches a fully functioning eye, it would still be completely, or at least mostly, useless the entire time before the complete product. Evolution by natural selection states that an individual that mutates a beneficial trait will survive and pass on its gene. But how is having part of, let's say, an eye possibly be beneficial? Again, it would be useless without all the parts functioning together. If someone has a theory, please tell me so that I can evaluate and hopefully come to a solid conclusion. Thanks.

I think your assumption is that an eye needs to be "plugged in" to the brain in order to function properly. However, as the eye evolves into the complex light-sensitive instrument we know it to be in its various manifestations, it first appears as several less complex versions of itself, all fully functional within its own capacity. It is an extension of the brain, not an addition to it, and therefore it is always "plugged in." For all intents and purposes, eyes are an exposed part of the brain.

Here's an example of animals that can have rudimentary eyes, or those that can only tell the difference between light and darkness, and nothing else: http://en.wikipedia.org...

But, what's more is that there are useless eyes out there, because evolution through natural selection is only one means of evolution. Evolution, for the most part, is entirely arbitrary, and will result in biological manifestations that are sometimes nebulous. This is why we'll have animals evolving similar to others in kind, but that evolution will diverge, resulting in a partial production of something useless, just as you described:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This animal, for example, does have eyes, but it's covered entirely by skin, and they are completely blind.

The question is, are those eyes rudimentary or are they vestigial? Because, evolution certainly works backwards -- for example, wisdom teeth and appendices. Why? Because, it's evolution. Like all other things organic, it just does what it does, without direction nor purpose. Purpose happens through sentience. Evolution isn't sentient. It just is.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 6:45:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

You messed up right here. In reality, organism *will not* keep light-sensitive protein, since it conveys no advantage.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 8:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 6:45:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

You messed up right here. In reality, organism *will not* keep light-sensitive protein, since it conveys no advantage.

Except, you know, the ability to sense light.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 10:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 8:38:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 10/1/2014 6:45:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

You messed up right here. In reality, organism *will not* keep light-sensitive protein, since it conveys no advantage.

Except, you know, the ability to sense light.

Molecule that changes shape in reaction to light != ability for an organism to sense light.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 10:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Detecting light lets you move towards or away from a light source. This can change how much radiation you soak in. Organisms that benefit from the extra radiation will congregate at the water surface. Those that are harmed by it can swim deeper into the ocean to avoid it.

Step 3: Specialisation occurs, and some cells become light-sensors (i.e. they focus their energy on producing the light-sensitive protein).


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

It means those cells switch off genes that aren't necessary to their function. Eye cells don't detect sound. Heart cells don't secrete stomach juices. Immune cells focus on killing one type of pathogen instead of every type. Basically, they put their metabolic resources towards their designated functions, and leave other functions to cells that are better-suited to them.

Step 4: Through gradual improvement, cells change shape to become better at capturing, absorbing and contrasting light.

But there's still no advantage to the organism, even at your hypothetical step 4. So you have cells reacting to light. How does this help the organism survive or reproduce? It doesn't, obviously. You have to have a complete loop of some sort where light produces some change in specimen behavior. Otherwise it's the same as no sensitivity.

I addressed this in Step 1. Also, more complex light sensors can distinguish contrast, brightness and colour. When you couple this with a rudimentary brain, it allows you to find food and avoid predators.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:11:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 10:32:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:38:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 10/1/2014 6:45:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:
Of course you can't magically sprout an eye. That's not how it works. Organ formation is done in baby steps.

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).

Step 2: Organism becomes multi-cellular, and keeps light-sensitive protein.

You messed up right here. In reality, organism *will not* keep light-sensitive protein, since it conveys no advantage.

Except, you know, the ability to sense light.

Molecule that changes shape in reaction to light != ability for an organism to sense light.

No, that's exactly what it means.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:24:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

Indeed. Sensing light is pretty useful for some organisms. Here are some of the advantages of sensing light:

-For photosynthetic bacteria, sensing light is obviously needed as mechanism that allows the bacteria to stay under the light and perform photosynthesis.

-A bacteria that feels the light and also repulsion to light, is more likely to live in the darkness, that could be a more solitary environment and therefore safer. Or vice versa, perhaps darkness is the dangerous environment, and the bacteria would be able to live in a safer environment under light.

-A protozoan that feeds on photosynthetic bacteria would find sensing light very usefull, as a bright environment is, for him, a synonym of lots of food.

-If a cell needs a particular temperature to live optimally, don't you think it would be great for it to feel the light? Remember that in nature, a bright environment is almost always a warmer environment.

Hope it helped.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:22:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 10:39:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/1/2014 11:16:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:02:12 AM, apb4y wrote:

Step 1: Single-celled organism acquires gene that codes for a light-sensitive protein (i.e. one that will temporarily change its shape when hit by electromagnetic radiation).


And how does this confer an advantage? How does this make an organism survive or reproduce more successfully? It doesn't.

Detecting light lets you move towards or away from a light source.

No, it doesn't. Moving requires a motor, and something must control the motor.

You guys are thinking too generically here. Think like you're wiring up your own tube guitar amplifier or something. It's not enough to say "Oh, I want that beautiful tube distortion". No, you have to have the tube, the wires, the power supply the cabinet, the speakers, the guitar, and so on. And you don't get a sound, not a peep, until you've wired up a whole bunch of things. So "look! I've mutated the ability to control electron flow" - that doesn't buy you anything.

The problem here is that Darwinian evolution is just nonsense, but you guys have decided to BELIEVE in it, and it's hard to get your brains to think objectively about it. But it is just nonsense, stories like this about the eye forming from random environmental noise are pure fantasy. I don't care how many degrees in parroting evolutionary doctrine a writer has, it's still just story telling.


What does that mean - they 'focus their energy'?

It means those cells switch off genes that aren't necessary to their function.

Well, now you're talking about genetics. Manipulating pre-existing information is a whole different thing. Turning your guitar amp on or off is obviously child's play compared to wiring one up from scratch.


I addressed this in Step 1. Also, more complex light sensors can distinguish contrast, brightness and colour. When you couple this with a rudimentary brain, it allows you to find food and avoid predators.

Well abracadabra! And now we have a brain all of a sudden, with nerves to communicate sensor information and actuators to control! Wasn't that handy, for that to be randomly evolving while waiting for the sensor to appear! Really, this doesn't awaken any little bit of common sense scepticism in your mind?

This is just nonsense, guys, complete and utter bs.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:24:22 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

Indeed. Sensing light is pretty useful for some organisms. Here are some of the advantages of sensing light:

-For photosynthetic bacteria, sensing light is obviously needed as mechanism that allows the bacteria to stay under the light and perform photosynthesis.

-A bacteria that feels the light and also repulsion to light, is more likely to live in the darkness, that could be a more solitary environment and therefore safer. Or vice versa, perhaps darkness is the dangerous environment, and the bacteria would be able to live in a safer environment under light.

-A protozoan that feeds on photosynthetic bacteria would find sensing light very usefull, as a bright environment is, for him, a synonym of lots of food.

-If a cell needs a particular temperature to live optimally, don't you think it would be great for it to feel the light? Remember that in nature, a bright environment is almost always a warmer environment.

Hope it helped.

No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.
This space for rent.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:38:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 6:24:22 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

Indeed. Sensing light is pretty useful for some organisms. Here are some of the advantages of sensing light:

-For photosynthetic bacteria, sensing light is obviously needed as mechanism that allows the bacteria to stay under the light and perform photosynthesis.

-A bacteria that feels the light and also repulsion to light, is more likely to live in the darkness, that could be a more solitary environment and therefore safer. Or vice versa, perhaps darkness is the dangerous environment, and the bacteria would be able to live in a safer environment under light.

-A protozoan that feeds on photosynthetic bacteria would find sensing light very usefull, as a bright environment is, for him, a synonym of lots of food.

-If a cell needs a particular temperature to live optimally, don't you think it would be great for it to feel the light? Remember that in nature, a bright environment is almost always a warmer environment.

Hope it helped.

No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

You should elaborate.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 9:55:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 7:38:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 6:24:22 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:05:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Light could presumably provoke other simpler reactions, but nobody has suggested any just yet. But my point still is that something has to happen in response to light, something that promotes survival or reproduction. Merely having a mutation that makes some local reaction to light does nothing for the specimen as a reproducing whole.

Indeed. Sensing light is pretty useful for some organisms. Here are some of the advantages of sensing light:

-For photosynthetic bacteria, sensing light is obviously needed as mechanism that allows the bacteria to stay under the light and perform photosynthesis.

-A bacteria that feels the light and also repulsion to light, is more likely to live in the darkness, that could be a more solitary environment and therefore safer. Or vice versa, perhaps darkness is the dangerous environment, and the bacteria would be able to live in a safer environment under light.

-A protozoan that feeds on photosynthetic bacteria would find sensing light very usefull, as a bright environment is, for him, a synonym of lots of food.

-If a cell needs a particular temperature to live optimally, don't you think it would be great for it to feel the light? Remember that in nature, a bright environment is almost always a warmer environment.

Hope it helped.

No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

You should elaborate.

I think I have in my posts. You have to think it through now.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 10:01:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And btw, one of the plain-old-science things that Dr. Behe added to human knowledge is the fact that there is no 'simple photo sensitivity'. Even the simplest bit of sensitivity requires multiple complex proteins and steps when understood at the microbiology level. That dang microscope has been nothing but trouble for Mr. Darwin.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:42:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

An organism doesn't need to develop an entire system along with photosensitivity in order to take advantage of a photosensitivity mutation. If some kind of system already exists that serves another function, and the photosensitive mutation affects that system in a way that is advantageous, then that is enough. Chemotaxis is one example of such a system, triggered by sensitivity to chemical gradients in the environment. A protein that changes in light and triggers the chemotaxis system is a very plausible mutation. In fact, chemotaxis and phototaxis systems almost always share regulatory proteins when they both are present in bacteria. That means one probably developed from the other.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:01:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 11:42:34 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

An organism doesn't need to develop an entire system along with photosensitivity in order to take advantage of a photosensitivity mutation. If some kind of system already exists that serves another function, and the photosensitive mutation affects that system in a way that is advantageous, then that is enough. Chemotaxis is one example of such a system, triggered by sensitivity to chemical gradients in the environment. A protein that changes in light and triggers the chemotaxis system is a very plausible mutation. In fact, chemotaxis and phototaxis systems almost always share regulatory proteins when they both are present in bacteria. That means one probably developed from the other.

Yeah, I think you're just pushing it back one step. If I accept your premise, I then need to ask how the chemotoxis system developed, the one that you are proposing can be re-purposed for light sensitivity. If chemotaxis is a system, then it's a system and you have the exact same conundrum - how can the pieces of the system develop one mutation at a time when there is no chemotaxis until the last mutation?

This attempt to get around irreducible complexity actually raises the statistical bar even higher: Now every mutation must not only confer an immediate advantage, it must also be setting up for some future change of plans. It's really difficult to not think of this stuff in hindsight, to assign some retroactive plausibility to it. You have to be able to ask yourself "What are the chances that chemotaxis would evolve in a way that would make it useful to light sensitivity later on?" Why should it? There's no direction in evolution, only individual mutations.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:12:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:01:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 11:42:34 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

An organism doesn't need to develop an entire system along with photosensitivity in order to take advantage of a photosensitivity mutation. If some kind of system already exists that serves another function, and the photosensitive mutation affects that system in a way that is advantageous, then that is enough. Chemotaxis is one example of such a system, triggered by sensitivity to chemical gradients in the environment. A protein that changes in light and triggers the chemotaxis system is a very plausible mutation. In fact, chemotaxis and phototaxis systems almost always share regulatory proteins when they both are present in bacteria. That means one probably developed from the other.

Yeah, I think you're just pushing it back one step. If I accept your premise, I then need to ask how the chemotoxis system developed, the one that you are proposing can be re-purposed for light sensitivity. If chemotaxis is a system, then it's a system and you have the exact same conundrum - how can the pieces of the system develop one mutation at a time when there is no chemotaxis until the last mutation?

This attempt to get around irreducible complexity actually raises the statistical bar even higher: Now every mutation must not only confer an immediate advantage, it must also be setting up for some future change of plans. It's really difficult to not think of this stuff in hindsight, to assign some retroactive plausibility to it. You have to be able to ask yourself "What are the chances that chemotaxis would evolve in a way that would make it useful to light sensitivity later on?" Why should it? There's no direction in evolution, only individual mutations.

As long as you recognize that a mutation can take advantage of an existing system, I'm considering my job done. You claimed that a single mutation to light sensitivity couldn't confer an advantage. I showed you how it could. In the context of how an organ can evolve, this takes care of a big part of your objection.

The evolution of specific systems and behaviors is a much larger discussion and ventures into abiogenesis. The number of scholarly articles discovered from a search of "evolution of chemotaxis" would keep anyone occupied for days. So if you're genuinely interested in how behaviors and biochemical systems evolve, then you should do some reading.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 7:22:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:12:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:01:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 11:42:34 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

An organism doesn't need to develop an entire system along with photosensitivity in order to take advantage of a photosensitivity mutation. If some kind of system already exists that serves another function, and the photosensitive mutation affects that system in a way that is advantageous, then that is enough. Chemotaxis is one example of such a system, triggered by sensitivity to chemical gradients in the environment. A protein that changes in light and triggers the chemotaxis system is a very plausible mutation. In fact, chemotaxis and phototaxis systems almost always share regulatory proteins when they both are present in bacteria. That means one probably developed from the other.

Yeah, I think you're just pushing it back one step. If I accept your premise, I then need to ask how the chemotoxis system developed, the one that you are proposing can be re-purposed for light sensitivity. If chemotaxis is a system, then it's a system and you have the exact same conundrum - how can the pieces of the system develop one mutation at a time when there is no chemotaxis until the last mutation?

This attempt to get around irreducible complexity actually raises the statistical bar even higher: Now every mutation must not only confer an immediate advantage, it must also be setting up for some future change of plans. It's really difficult to not think of this stuff in hindsight, to assign some retroactive plausibility to it. You have to be able to ask yourself "What are the chances that chemotaxis would evolve in a way that would make it useful to light sensitivity later on?" Why should it? There's no direction in evolution, only individual mutations.

As long as you recognize that a mutation can take advantage of an existing system, I'm considering my job done.

Ok. I thought we were talking about how a system might come to exist in the first place, as in "Is it possible to evolve organs"

You claimed that a single mutation to light sensitivity couldn't confer an advantage. I showed you how it could.

Actually, no, you didn't show anything. You proposed something, but you haven't proved your idea in any way. Edison thought you could produce light by running a current through a fiber, but when he tried it, the fibers would just burn up instantly. Great idea, but it took a system before a fiber could actually produce useable light from electricity.

So if you're genuinely interested in how behaviors and biochemical systems evolve, then you should do some reading.

Nice try. You can't elucidate it, but there's proof out there if I would just read it. Sorry, but I spent a lot of years finding out that there is in fact nothing under the hood.

So, if there were real scientific evidence, you'd point me to that, not reading material. I'm telling the alchemists that they should let me know when they've turned lead to gold, not when they've written another paper.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 11:19:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 7:22:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:12:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:01:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/2/2014 11:42:34 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/2/2014 7:24:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, that doesn't help. You're TOTALLY missing the point that a whole system, a control loop, is required in order for light sensitivity to do anything useful.

An organism doesn't need to develop an entire system along with photosensitivity in order to take advantage of a photosensitivity mutation. If some kind of system already exists that serves another function, and the photosensitive mutation affects that system in a way that is advantageous, then that is enough. Chemotaxis is one example of such a system, triggered by sensitivity to chemical gradients in the environment. A protein that changes in light and triggers the chemotaxis system is a very plausible mutation. In fact, chemotaxis and phototaxis systems almost always share regulatory proteins when they both are present in bacteria. That means one probably developed from the other.

Yeah, I think you're just pushing it back one step. If I accept your premise, I then need to ask how the chemotoxis system developed, the one that you are proposing can be re-purposed for light sensitivity. If chemotaxis is a system, then it's a system and you have the exact same conundrum - how can the pieces of the system develop one mutation at a time when there is no chemotaxis until the last mutation?

This attempt to get around irreducible complexity actually raises the statistical bar even higher: Now every mutation must not only confer an immediate advantage, it must also be setting up for some future change of plans. It's really difficult to not think of this stuff in hindsight, to assign some retroactive plausibility to it. You have to be able to ask yourself "What are the chances that chemotaxis would evolve in a way that would make it useful to light sensitivity later on?" Why should it? There's no direction in evolution, only individual mutations.

As long as you recognize that a mutation can take advantage of an existing system, I'm considering my job done.

Ok. I thought we were talking about how a system might come to exist in the first place, as in "Is it possible to evolve organs"

Like I said, I was addressing one specific objection of yours: that a mutation for light sensitivity couldn't confer an advantage. It can.

You claimed that a single mutation to light sensitivity couldn't confer an advantage. I showed you how it could.

Actually, no, you didn't show anything. You proposed something, but you haven't proved your idea in any way. Edison thought you could produce light by running a current through a fiber, but when he tried it, the fibers would just burn up instantly. Great idea, but it took a system before a fiber could actually produce useable light from electricity.

What I wrote is common knowledge for anyone with an understanding of genetics and evolutionary theory. It isn't some crazy proposal that I just made up on a whim. It's something that has been studied and found to occur, just not specifically for photosensitivity. Like someone else in this thread mentioned, a mutation in E. coli in the long term evolutionary experiment caused a system for metabolizing glucose to allow metabolism of citrate. That's a single mutation that caused an existing system to be used differently.

So if you're genuinely interested in how behaviors and biochemical systems evolve, then you should do some reading.

Nice try. You can't elucidate it, but there's proof out there if I would just read it. Sorry, but I spent a lot of years finding out that there is in fact nothing under the hood.

So, if there were real scientific evidence, you'd point me to that, not reading material. I'm telling the alchemists that they should let me know when they've turned lead to gold, not when they've written another paper.

Sorry, but this is where we get into trying to boil down years of research into forum posts, and I have no interest nor incentive to do it. I'm not asking you to take my word. There is ample evidence easily found with a simple search. If you want something specific, start here and backtrack as needed until you understand the foundational studies:

http://link.springer.com...

Someone genuinely interested in learning about this kind of thing would start reading. So if you're interested in learning something, have at it.