Along those lines, I was reading how dragonflies are able to intercept prey very accurately in what seems to a complex process of calculation.
However, in thinking about some basic boating classes I took, you can determine if you are on a collision course with another boat simply by noting that the angle they are approaching remains constant. It seems that a dragonfly, simply by keeping prey at the same angle both horizonily and vertically in its vision would intersect its path. Perhaps compound eyes would make this easy, just keep an eye on the bug, and you have dinner. Little brain power needed.
2 Likes
We are already apes, just as we are also mammals, vertebrates, and eukaryotes.
Do you agree or disagree that the genetic differences between us and chimps is responsible for our physical differences?
2 Likes
Thanks @jpm. That is a really interesting comparison between collision courses when boating and dragonfly hunting. Similarly, one can judge speed by observing whether the object in question is getting larger or smaller in oneâs field of vision.
Another good example of complex vision with limited resources are jumping spiders (Salticidae). They are much smaller than both dragonflies and mantises and yet their large front eyes have a lens, a retina, and a movable tube that allows for tracking. Combined, with their other simpler eyes, jumping spiders are able to hunt prey with incredibly accurate cat like pounces. And yet, their eye plan and body plan are no different to any other spider, merely adapted to the job. When you consider that the common Zebra Spider (Salticus scenicus) is only 5-9mm in length, that some serious equipment in something smaller than the average dragonflies compound eye!
Again, good article of jumping spider eyesight here:
2 Likes
I think the genetics are just part of the differences between us. Given that DNA is just our OS, our entire blueprints and hardware are different than an apeâs.
The question isnât about the sight, but what itâs for. Ours must be highly complex because our eyes are not just for hunting and gathering. We were given the ability to use our sight as a tool and as a gateway to wonder.
That is not science. Thatâs trying to explain away something that shows up fully formed and can be lost but not evolved.
I was not writing a scientific thesis. I explained a few things that has happened. I have no reason to write out a detailed scientific explanation covering how eyeballs evolved or the different types of eyeballs.
You donât accept science. Iâm already aware of it. Thatâs why I minimally engage in convo with you. What I do is share things that people who accept the basics to science can read and pursue it.
If you want a more detailed scientific explanation there is a podcast I linked. That podcast is by two scientists. The podcast has episode notes that link to multiple papers. The episode uses key phrases and terminology that can be researched by those willing to do it.
A good simple place to start is wikipedia.
When reading through it you realize there are gaps. Obviously there will be gaps. Eyes donât easily fossilize. But evolution is not based just one one simple organ. Itâs based on every organ, every bone, and so on.
How do you believe eyes got here? God just images them and they popped into place in every fully formed being? If so then show the science for it.
What I constantly see from creationist as answers is a combination of non answers mimicking an answer.
- No scientific evidence to back their claims of fully formed eyes popping into existence.
- Latching on to gaps that they think are canyons which are actually just sidewalk cracks and pretend that something such as non fossilized cones is a big deal when itâs not because we have living animals and we have genetics.
- Astonishment resulting in attributing something they donât understand to divinity.
The fact that eyes can evolve way, is the same process to which eyes evolved into being. Animals with eyes trapped inside a cage did not all suddenly have offspring with no eyes and giant extra sensitive feelers.
Why does the ability to perceive wonder preclude the evolution of the human eye? What do you mean by âsight as a toolâ?
1 Like
Something else to consider when looking at convergent evolution, is to sort of understand it as a genetic basal blueprint. Evolution uses whatâs there often.
Consider legs. Legs did not just randomly evolve once tetrapods got into land. It used limbs. We see these concepts already being used prior to tetrapods such as with sea skates. The same genes that sea skates use with their lower back fins thst they use like feet is the same as in tetrapods like us.
1 Like
What hardware doesnât come from DNA? All of your RNA and proteins come from DNA, and everything else is built by those RNA and protein molecules. It all traces back to DNA. This is why identical twins are identical, because their genetics are identical.
If you canât admit that genetic differences are the cause of physical differences between species then you are rejecting far more than just evolution.
How do you determine if something shows up fully formed? What criteria do you use?
1 Like
Because wonder, among other things cannot be evolved or even chosen for by mutations. We see in the light spectrum that gives us the most beautiful vision. And just by chance, our sun gives us the perfect light for our vision. Infrared may be handy, but who wants to see that all the time? Even the Hubble telescope doesnât show us reality, but invisible spectrums of light and radiation filtered into our visual range.
What are some requirements of a tool? It serves a purpose better than if we didnât have that tool. It must have some degree of precision based on the use. We can look at something and not only identify it within a fraction of a second, we see whether it is moving, how far away it is, what color it is and how fast itâs moving. We can estimate by sight alone; weights, distances, volumes, speeds and more. Far more than the simple input of sight is involved, but it is hardwired into us. Just think what it would be like if you had to consciously process everything you see?
I believe by faith that God has designed the universe, and human vision is one aspect of His design.
That said, there is not a scintilla of science behind the notion that sunlight and vision are paired âjust by chance.â Our vision is adaptive to the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in our environment, and the source of that radiation is almost 100% the sun. It is no surprise to evolutionary biology that the advantages of vision are linked to the kinds of electromagnetic radiation bouncing around in our environment.
Yours,
Chris Falter
4 Likes
The only advantage is to working vision. Any intermediate steps that donât work are not only a disadvantage, they take up resources better used for survival.
But for ID or assisted evolution, why not have infrared vision? Super hearing or strength? Evolution is bad enough blind, but when you add purpose, then anything should be possible.
The fossil record may not be complete, but it is thorough. Look at any animal fossil where there are still living relatives (specifically close relatives, like the same kind). Wasps still have the same type of eyes as their fossilized kin. There may be small changes (or not), but the eyes back then were fully formed and functional as they are now. I would wager that even animals with basic eye spots either still have them, or they have lost them for permanent blindness. No net gain.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Depending on the ecological niche, any degree of vision can be advantageous.
4 Likes
Or, as in the case of deep cave dwellers, it can be a disadvantage. Either way, without the whole network working, nothing happens.
As organisms evolved , and eyes got more complex, it did not mean the previous eyes were a disadvantage. It meant that more was advantageous.
The same argument could be made for literal creationism. Why did God not make is stronger, faster, with super sight?
When the first sets of vision was just the ability to see shades of light and learn that light being momentarily dimmed meant something was now moving above them. It allowed them to stop moving in that direction. It was very advantageous. Then each step along the way was more and more advantageous.
Some have retained their same basic features for a while. Thatâs also perfectly fine. There is the study of punctuated equilibrium. Thatâs when a morphological feature remains close to the same for a long time, becoming basal traits and may even evolve back again and again within the same lineage. Look at crocodilians. Crocodiles, alligators, and caimans all are fairly similar and have remained fairly similar for a long time. The body works perfectly for a shore line predator. We can see where throughout time there has been significant divergence though. There was bipedal crocodylomorphs. There are species of birds that has evolved back into flightless birds. The linage of wasps has remained the same for a while following basal trait species. But wasps, ants, and bees can all be traced back to common ancestors. Ants evolved from a vespoid wasp species back around when T Trex was roaming westerns USA. So while wasps have remained very much the same, there has also been great differences following the various genre within that family.
Again consider ferns too. Almost everyone recognizes a fern. The traditional most common form. Theyâve not changed all that much for many forms. If you study spore shapes they change a lot. But within ferns there are also very distinct ones. There are ferns that never leave the gametophyte stage. There are fern trees. There are climbing ferns like the Japanese climbing fern or the American climbing fern. There are filmy ferns with leaves the size of ants growing within lichen. There are ferns like the resurrection fern that dries out and pops back. There are even ferns that remain almost entirely underground and get their nutrients from fungi like the mycorrhizae. Ferns are a wonderful example of morphological changes from evolution, including horizontal gene transfer naturally occurring.
So while wasps eyes may look very similar and even their bodies remain very similar we do see lots of changes. Have you ever read about the resolution factor in facial resolution within wasps and how it differs between larger and smaller species? Or how does the pigment color of wasps eyes change anything? Such as do any wasps have eyes that better highlight the color of specific caterpillars that that lay their eggs in?
3 Likes
Why not? Just because a human trait evolved does not make it any less beneficial to humanity or to God.
Couple of things worth noting here. Firstly, wasps, along with bees, ants, and sawflies make up the Order Hymenoptera. The hymenopterans are the end of insect evolution. So by the time wasps appear on the scene, millions of years of natural selection has already refined the insect body plan from something like the humble silverfish and firebrats to what we see in the fossilised amber above. No surprise then, that as we go back through the evolutionary âtreeâ, compound eyes become smaller and simpler (such as in silverfish and firebrats). So, actually, by the time wasps hit the scene much of the net gain in insect eye evolution as already happened.
Also, as we move between âshootsâ on the same branch, we see difference in prominence, size, and complexity of compound eyes depending on how much sight provides the insect an evolutionary advantage. Ants for example, are also Hymenopterans and so a close relative to wasps, and yet their compound eyes are reduced to the point where they are almost superfluous. Why? Because their eusocial lifestyle and (largely) subterranean ecosystem means that sight was increasingly selected out in favour of pheromonal communication. A significant net gain for the ant.
This also helps us understand why âmodernâ wasp eyes remain largely unchanged morphologically compared to fossilised ancestors. Because their eye sight works and it especially works very well for what a wasp needs to feed, breed, and survive. This means that wasps have made a home virtually every (all?) habitat available to them (something they did a very long time ago). As a result, any future mutations were likely to be inconsequential or only marginal gains on an already winning formula. That is to say, there are not many (any?) net gains available to the wasp in the eyesight department.
5 Likes
This is illustrative of how evolution is mischaracterized and misunderstood by many. In fact, the intermediate steps do work. But each tiny stepwise improvement works better. Ultimately, something in the middle may be lost and it is hard to see the link, but it is still there.
Your statement is of course true in cases like blind cave fish, where they have turned off the development of functioning eyes as they evolved to better adapt to their lightless environment and not waste the energy and brain power to grow functioning but useless eyes.
6 Likes