The "design" of the eye

not at all. they just believe that its happaned:

"The team suspects that at some point during evolution, a warnowiid ancestor gobbled up some algae and adopted its photosynthetic equipment. "-

so its only a beliefe.

not simple at all (again- even syespot need about 200 proteins- and this system is less complex even according to those scientists). even if it was only about 2-3 proteins its more then what evolution can do. and its not a step wise.

Please read the article. It isn’t just a belief.

Yes it is simple, and 200 proteins is not “200 parts”.

Of course it’s “step wise”, the eyespot consists of repurposed internal organelles. Do you know what that means?

are you serius? protein is a protein.

you welcome to try making a simple camera by combination of exist parts.do you think its possible?

Yes. It is not a “part” of an eye. The eyespot in in that organism does not have “200 parts”. It has three.

Sure. I can repurpose a tin can by drilling a hole in it and using my finger as a shutter. Instant camera. Have you never made a pinhole camera before? It’s simple.

first- you need 3 parts: a hole, a can and your finger.

secondly- do you think it can evolve by a random combination?

third- do you think it can evolve into something more complex like a video camera?

But all those things exist. So it’s just a matter of putting them together. Behold!

It doesn’t “evolve by a random combination”. It evolves through natural selection.

Of course. I just need to co-opt more parts. Please let me know when you understand evolution and you know what “repurposed internal organelles” means. Until then you’re not going to make sense of this subject.

first its not true that those parts are exactly identical. for example: about 10 proteins from the ttss system shared homologous with the flagellum genes. but they not identical. just similar. now lets say they they are indeed identical. what is the chance to combine 3 different parts togheter to form a minimal camera? the number of different parts in the world is more then one milion. so the sequence space of 3 different parts is about 1000000^3. how many of them form a camera?

Well stated. The behavior you observed is so consistent that I consistently look for more informative commenters who have a knowledge of the science and who can either teach me more about that science or can demonstrate better ways to explain it to novices. I tired of Eddie’s complaints and attention-seeking remarks long ago. Now I only see them when other commenters quote from them.

1 Like

@dcscccc, you clearly have no idea what you read. That explains why your reasoning makes no sense. As to your math, as presented, it’s unclear what you are trying to say.

This will keep happening until you take the time to learn the basics of what evolution is and how it operates.

1 Like

Again, this shows you do not understand evolution, and don’t know what “repurposed internal organelles” means.

can you falsified my argument or not? from your answer i guess not.

It has already been explained to you that your argument is illogical.

So what? No one said they are identical.

This doesn’t make any sense. Again, it just shows you don’t understand evolution. You’re treating this as if it’s all totally random and as if there are more than one million parts in the equation. There aren’t. Your math here just isn’t even relevant.

first- we talk about a random combination of 3 parts. so its indeed random.

secondly- there is about 100,000 different proteins in human body. and about more parts that are consider as junk. so the number is very close to one milion different parts that we can combine togheter.

No we’re not talking about a random combination of three parts. This shows you don’t understand evolution, which is not a random process.

Irrelevant. They can’t all combine in every single imaginable combination.

so how a camera will evolve step wise then? by starting with one part? how the camera will work with one part? even your pinhole camera need about 3 parts.

Yes by starting with one part. If you had read about the evolution of the eye, you would know this. It is well documented.

Because the one part is a photosensitive cluster of proteins. That’s it.

your video actually claiming exactly my claim! they start with an eyespot from the euglena. again- this structure have about 200 proteins. any protein is one part (read about proteins). so even in the starting point you need at least 200 different parts. this is your step wise evolution? its like to start with a camera that contain 200 parts.

No it isn’t. It is demonstrating how the eye evolved in steps. You claim the opposite; that the eye could never evolve in steps.

As I have already said, 200 proteins is not “200 parts”. A protein is not a “part”. An eye made from 200 proteins is not the same as a camera with 200 parts. There are eyes made from 200 proteins which have only one part.

from wiki:

“proteins are large biomolecules, or macromolecules, consisting of one or more long chains of amino acid residues”

“Proteins differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which is dictated by the nucleotide sequence of their genes, and which usually results in protein folding into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity.”

but if you dont have any problem with a starting point of 200 proteins its fine. do you think that scientists also believe that a structure that contain 200 proteins can evolve in one step?