Eye Mock Stupidity

I’m all in favor of mocking stupidity, and here’s something definitely worth mocking.

In arguing for evolution, author Alan R. Rogers appeals to the Nilsson and Pelger paper on how simple it is to evolve an eye. He writes:

If eyes evolve, they must do so often and easily. Could it really be so easy?

Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger have answered this question. They constructed an evolutionary story much like the one that I told above.

– The Evidence for Evolution. p. 42.

And what did he write about the story that he told above?

This story is of course a fabrication. p. 40

I’m serious! Can it get any more stupid than that?

Do evolutionists believe fabrications? When it comes to how to evolve and eye it would certainly seem so.

524 thoughts on “Eye Mock Stupidity

  1. I’m getting a feeling of déjà-vu here. I think the idea of determinism and strict lines of causality cascading away from the first cause is somewhat outdated, post Heisenberg.

  2. Mung:
    Did you know that the pax6 proteins of mouse and human are identical?

    Obviously mice and humans are very closely related.

    Did you know that the pax6 proteins of mouse and fruit fly are very similar?

    Obviously the mouse, human and fruit fly share a recent common ancestor and are all closely related.

    Is it that “similar” and “closely related” are utterly subjective and can be as plastic as needed in order to make the evolutionary argument?

    How closely related are all molluscs? Anyone?

    It would appear that pax6 is used in squid, mice and humans but not in octopuses.

    Here is an interesting snippet about photoreceptor cells and also pax6 from Richard Norman at Talk Origins,
    The mammalian and octopus camera eye – common design? – evolutionary mess?

    For many decades, people have understood that there are basically two distinctly different types of photoreceptor cells: those derived from ciliated cells (like vertebrate rods and cones) and those derived from cells with microvilli instead of cilia (the “rhabdomere” type receptor) found in the protostomes like insects and molluscs. This led to the notion that photoreceptors evolved independently in protostomes (the insect and mollusc line) and deuterostomes (the echinoderm and chordate/vertebrate line). However it turns out the some clams and scallops have ciliary photoreceptors and some starfish have microvilli photoreceptors. But the really big change was the finding that the gene, Pax6, is a master control gene for producing eyes and is widely conserved across all bilateral animals, protostome and deuterostome. The mouse PAX6 can trigger eye development in the fruit fly! That forces the conclusion that the production of eyes must have been present in the ancestral bilateria.

    Unfortunately Pax6 is not expressed in the octopus. That is just one of those flukes that constantly appear in biology: Pax6 is found in the non-camera eyes of scallops and the camera eyes of squid so the impression is that Pax6 should be there doing its thing. Also, Pax6 does a whole bunch of things other than control eyes: it is involved in producing specialized olfactory neurons and is also found in the pancreas as well as many parts of the nervous system.

  3. Rumraket: I’m not here simply to state the fact that I happen to believe in evolution. I usually like to argue about the evidence for it and the logic of the reasoning that uses that evidence.

    But I rarely see this from the “other side” in this debate. Mostly what we get is what you did, you merely state the fact of your unbelief. Great. We all already knew, from the past several years of interaction, that you don’t believe it. What’s missing is some supporting arguments and evidence.

    Well I too believe in evolution. Only I do not believe that genes are the instigators of evolutionary change. I believe that genes are used by organisms in order to develop in conformity with their environment.

  4. GlenDavidson: Have you looked at how different the anatomy of the cephalopod camera eye is from the vertebrate camera eye?

    Yes, and the similarities.

    As in here

    Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human.

    Structural similarities between human and octopus eyes. Even though there are some differences between human and octopus eyes, each of the tissues such as eyelid, cornea, pupil, iris, ciliary muscle, lens, retina, and optic nerve/ganglion corresponds well to each other. The octopus eye forms from an epidermal placode through a series of successive infoldings, whereas the human eye forms from the neural plate and induces the overlying epidermis to form the lens (Harris 1997). The differences in developmental processes between human and octopus are explained in the same reference (Harris 1997). This figure was modified with permission from Sinauer Associates, Inc., © 1990 (Brusca and Brusca 1990)…

    This view has been changed, however, by Gehring and Ikeo (1999), who maintain that the expression of the common master regulator Pax6 in both types of eyes indicates the divergence of these two types of eyes from a single prototype eye present in the common ancestor of cephalopods and vertebrates. It has previously been reported that Pax6, a “master control” gene for the development of the eye, is highly conserved across species. Within molluscs, it has been shown that the scallop, ear shell, and squid all express Pax6 (Tomarev et al. 1997). Pax6 expression has not yet been observed in the octopus. However, the expression of Pax6 in the camera eye of the squid, a member of the same phylum, supports the prediction that Pax6 controls the development of the octopus eye. However, there is no clear explanation of how the elaborate camera eyes of humans and octopuses evolved from the prototype eye. In other words, there is a gap between the evolution of genes expressed in the camera eye and the evolution of morphological structures of the camera eye.

    The fact that eyes can develop from different tissue layers in separate phyla is no surprise to me considering I have already linked to an article that demonstrates ectopic eyes can be produced by manipulating voltage potentials. This shows that it is not that the cause lies not in the physical substance but in the field surrounding it.

  5. Erik: The relevant statement by JF is, “It’s totally irrelevant whether natural selection is a cause or an effect. It is a process which can be thought of as either. We do this all the time.”

    ETA: I gave a response to that to which JF has further replied, “When discussing the outcome of genetic crosses, I use the phenomenon of Mendelian segregation. Of course someone might say that Mendelian segregation is an effect, not a cause…. Correct metaphysical understanding or no, you’re going to have to use it. Or get zero points on the test question.”

    Oh, that. Yes, I made those statements (and stand by them). They are not some general statement about the epistemological status of Causation. Nor are they a contribution to the chicken-egg problem, which to me seems a useless exercise.

    They were a response to our creationist and ID-advocate commenters saying that natural selection was not a cause but was instead an effect.

    I was pointing out that we use such intermediate-level “forces” all the time. Such as Mendelian segregation, genetic drift, Brownian Motion, landslides, and erosion. They may themselves be caused by molecular interactions and motions at a lower level. All the way down to quarks, I suppose.

    In that thread Mung was asking whether we could distinguish between natural selection as a cause and natural selection as an effect. My reply was that it didn’t matter to the discussion of genetic changes in populations — it is useful to say that natural selection has caused this or that. Just as we say that erosion ate away at a river bank, or that Mendelian segregation caused the pattern of genotypes in the offspring of a genetic cross, or that Brownian motion caused the spread of ink when a drop of ink is placed in a glass of water, or that the shedding of pollen by trees caused my car to need washing. Each of those can be declared to not really be a “cause” but instead an effect. But it is useful in life and in science to consider them causes. And it is not useful the explain the need to wash my car by discussing molecules, atoms, or elementary particles.

    I’ve brought up this point a number of times before. When I do, the creationist/ID side yammers on about how there really isn’t any “force” such as natural selection — but they are silent about the need to discard concepts such as Brownian motion, erosion, or Mendelian segregation.

  6. CharlieM: Well I too believe in evolution. Only I do not believe that genes are the instigators of evolutionary change. I believe that genes are used by organisms in order to develop in conformity with their environment.

    What does that mean? I, for one, have no idea what you’re trying to say.

  7. The evolution of the eye is not just a case of progression from the simple to the complex as this demonstrates

    The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, led by Professor Sarah Gabbott from the University of Leicester Department of Geology, shows that fossil hagfish eyes were well-developed, indicating that the ancient animal could see, whereas their living counterparts are completely blind after millions of years of eye degeneration — a kind of reverse evolution…

    This is the first time that such details in fossil vertebrate eyes have been brought to bear on the tricky problem of how their eyes evolved.

    The eye is a complex structure and must have evolved through small step-by-step changes but these are not recorded in living animals and until now it was thought that these anatomical details could not be preserved in fossils.

    Professor Gabbott explains: “To date models of vertebrate eye evolution focus only on living animals and the blind and ‘rudimentary’ hagfish eye was held-up as critical evidence of an intermediate stage in eye evolution. Living hagfish eyes appeared to sit between the simple light sensitive eye ‘spots’ of non-vertebrates and the sophisticated camera-style eyes of lampreys and most other vertebrates.”

    The details of the retina in the fossil hagfish indicates that it had a functional visual system, meaning that living hagfish eyes have been lost through millions of years of evolution, and these animals are not as primitively simple as we originally believed. As a result they are not the most appropriate model for understanding eye evolution…

    Notice they remark on how the eye “must have evolved through small step-by-step changes”. No other options may even be considered.

  8. CharlieM: Notice they remark on how the eye “must have evolved through small step-by-step changes”. No other options may even be considered.

    What other options are there for consideration?

  9. Alan Fox,

    Actually I should say that chickens are dinosaurs. Our next-door neighbors have four dinosaurs in their back yard, and just gave us a dozen dinosaur eggs, some of which I ate.

  10. John Harshman: What does that mean? I, for one, have no idea what you’re trying to say.

    You could scan through this from Stephen Talbott, or just read this concluding piece.

    The organism is an activity, not a collection of things
    This truth is emerging on all fronts. An illustration: researchers looked at a “spectacular example of convergent evolution and phenotypic plasticity” — namely the independent arising of queen and worker castes in bees, ants, and wasps. The common notion that such cases must involve deeply conserved genes was not supported by this work. Rather, “Overall, we found few shared caste differentially expressed transcripts across the three social lineages. However, there is substantially more overlap at the levels of pathways and biological functions. Thus, there are shared elements but not on the level of specific genes. Instead, the toolkit appears to be relatively “loose,” that is, different lineages show convergent molecular evolution involving similar metabolic pathways and molecular functions but not the exact same genes. Additionally, our paper wasp data do not support a complementary hypothesis that “novel” taxonomically restricted genes are related to caste differences” (Berens, Hunt and Toth 2015, doi:10.1093/molbev/msu330).
    Genes, in other words, are not master controllers or bearers of controlling instructions, but rather represent resources that evolving organisms can employ in their own ways. The same genes can be put to very different uses, and different genes can be caught up in the service of similar ends. The determination of a gene’s meaning is made by the organism as a whole, based on its patterns of activity.

    This might give you an idea of what I mean.

  11. Alan Fox:

    CharlieM: Notice they remark on how the eye “must have evolved through small step-by-step changes”. No other options may even be considered.

    What other options are there for consideration?

    If you saw the drawing of the buttercup leaves that I posted, you will see that they share a common theme but none of them have originated by a series of small incremental steps one from the other.

    Each is a relatively static physical expression of an overarching dynamic form. This is similar to how the physical features of the frog are an expression of the form of the field which oversees it.

  12. CharlieM,
    Charlie, with respect, that is not answering my question. Telling me evolution is a poor explanation for some observed feature of living organisms is not telling me anything other than I already know.

    What alternative explanations are there that can better account for the structure of buttercup flowers?

  13. Joe Felsenstein: They were a response to our creationist and ID-advocate commenters saying that natural selection was not a cause but was instead an effect.

    Must have been phoodoo that you were talking to.

  14. CharlieM: The eye is a complex structure and must have evolved through small step-by-step changes but these are not recorded in living animals and until now it was thought that these anatomical details could not be preserved in fossils.

    So now that we’ve seen that these anatomical details can be preserved in fossils, has the judgment that “these are not recorded in living animals” become irrelevant because these anatomical details are recorded in fossils? Or are they not recorded in fossils either. What’s an eyevolutionist to do.

    The eye is a complex structure and must have evolved through small step-by-step changes…

    Because jumps would be indistinguishable from magic. And magic is unscientific. Therefore small gradual steps is the only way to go. Even if it’s illogical. Because while science cannot accept magic, it can accept illogical reasoning just fine.

    Alan Fox: What other options are there for consideration?

    big changes. jumps.

    Why is it that evolutionists can accept entire genome duplication while at the same time claiming to having an aversion to big changes? It’s illogical.

  15. Mung:

    Joe Felsenstein: They were a response to our creationist and ID-advocate commenters saying that natural selection was not a cause but was instead an effect.

    Must have been phoodoo that you were talking to.

    No, it was this comment, which is by Mung,.

  16. CharlieM: This might give you an idea of what I mean.

    I don’t think it did. I suspect that the authors of that piece are speaking metaphorically while you are not. They aren’t talking about some deliberate agency of animals in their own evolution, while I suspect you are.

  17. Mung: So now that we’ve seen that these anatomical details can be preserved in fossils, has the judgment that “these are not recorded in living animals” become irrelevant because these anatomical details are recorded in fossils? Or are they not recorded in fossils either. What’s an eyevolutionist to do.

    You work with the data you have. If all the fossils collected at some point in history don’t show any preservation of the anatomical details of eyes, then you tentatively conclude that they probably can’t be preserved in fossils. So you just work with the fossils you have and the diversity of life that presently exists and you try to make your inferences from this set of evidence.

    Then when a fossil turns up where detailed eye anatomy is preserved, then you change your mind because now you have concrete evidence that shows that, at least under some circumstances, they do preserve. And that’s nice because now you can test hypotheses you made based on the previous data you had, against the new data you get from the newly discovered fossil.

    You go with the evidence.

    Because jumps would be indistinguishable from magic. And magic is unscientific.

    It has nothing to do with whether it “looks like magic”, it has to do with basic probability theory and it has to do with observation. Preferrably work by positing causes seen operating in the here and now, and smaller steps requiring fewer genetic changes are generally more likely.

    Therefore small gradual steps is the only way to go. Even if it’s illogical. Because while science cannot accept magic, it can accept illogical reasoning just fine.

    But there isn’t any illogical reasoning involved. You are just making silly and simplistic strawmen of how the actual reasoning and logic goes.

    Why is it that evolutionists can accept entire genome duplication while at the same time claiming to having an aversion to big changes? It’s illogical.

    Because you have to look at the detail. Whole genome duplication leaves evidence behind.

    We might have a methodological preference for simpler and more likely explanations, but evidence can overrule that preference. Whole genome duplication leaves some very unambigous evidence behind: The whole genome exists twice. And when we compare multiple descendants from that putative ancestral whole genome duplication, we can even see how many of the extra genes are lost and degrade over time.

    So it isn’t illogical, it’s perfectly sensible. Your portrayal of it is just too superficial and simplistic. As usual.

  18. Joe Felsenstein: No, it was this comment, which is by Mung,.

    But Joe, there is nothing in that comment resembling the assertion that natural selection [is] not a cause but [is] instead an effect. Did you perhaps misrepresent what I actually wrote?

  19. Rumraket: You go with the evidence.

    And you missed the point entirely. Whoosh! Does that take effort on your part or does it come naturally? The missing evidence is still missing.

    The eye is a complex structure and must have evolved through small step-by-step changes but these are not recorded in living animals and until now it was thought that these anatomical details could not be preserved in fossils.

    Are they recorded, perhaps, in fossils? No?

    So zero anatomical evidence that the eye evolved in the way Rogers claims. ZEE ROH!

  20. Rumraket: Still mad as fuck I see. Oh well…

    If you don’t have an argument why not just shut up?

    There’s nothing at all supernatural about saltations. Nothing. But for some reason your theory can’t abide them. Except for the cases where it does. Utterly schizoid.

    It’s like this book I’ve been posting about. Similarity indicates relatedness and is an argument for common descent. Of course, some times, as we have seen, similarity can exist even in organisms are not closely related. So then we look at the regions of DNA which surround the similar regions, and those are different. And that too is seen as proof argument of common descent.

    If it’s the same, it’s evidence for common descent. If it’s different, it’s evidence for common descent. Given those parameters, what wouldn’t be evidence for common descent?

    Why would anyone believe that nonsense?

  21. Mung:

    Joe Felsenstein: No, it was this comment, which is by Mung,.

    But Joe, there is nothing in that comment resembling the assertion that natural selection [is] not a cause but [is] instead an effect. Did you perhaps misrepresent what I actually wrote?

    Oh, so you’re OK with someone saying that natural selection causes this or causes that?

    As you would be if someone said Brownian Motion causes ink from an inkdrop to diffuse outwards?

  22. Joe Felsenstein: Oh, so you’re OK with someone saying that natural selection causes this or causes that?

    I would have a problem with that because it’s too vague to be meaningful. Unlike your brownian motion example, where you say exactly what it is that you think brownian motion causes.

    Would you be OK with someone saying that brownian motion cases this or that without saying what brownian motion cases?

    in one case you give a specific example, and in the other you are intentional vague.

    Why not take a shot at something that natural selection actually causes? Does it cause finch beaks to get longer? Does it cause differential reproduction?

    ETA: Joe, do you think genetic drift causes genetic drift?

  23. Rumraket: You work with the data you have. If all the fossils collected at some point in history don’t show any preservation of the anatomical details of eyes, then you tentatively conclude that they probably can’t be preserved in fossils.

    And if we find out they actually could be preserved in fossils, then you tentatively conclude that a group of creationists with bad intentions must have found all the fossil evidence and hid it from the evolutionists.

    Its all just going with the data in Rumrakets head.

  24. Mung:

    Alan Fox: What other options are there for consideration?

    big changes. jumps.

    Are you talking about Goldschmidt and his hopeful monsters? Saltationism? Mutationism?

    Why is it that evolutionists can accept entire genome duplication while at the same time claiming to having an aversion to big changes? It’s illogical.

    Why is it illogical? Polyploidy is quite common in plants.

  25. phoodoo,
    It might be considered off-topic. There’s no rule regarding off-topic comments.
    But there is a rule that moderation issues should be discussed in the appropriate thread.

  26. Alan Fox: Polyploidy is quite common in plants.

    Would you say that polyploidy is a small change, a big change, somewhere in between, or that it’s meaningless to speak of “the size” of a genetic change?

    Why does evolutionary theory require “small changes”? Hint: It doesn’t.

  27. Alan Fox:
    phoodoo,
    It might be considered off-topic. There’s no rule regarding off-topic comments.
    But there is a rule that moderation issues should be discussed in the appropriate thread.

    If off topic comments are not against the rules, why did you warn me?

    @ phoodoo

    It would be great to see some substantive content from you for a change.
    phoodoo,
    Take the hint (or don’t).

    Escargot!

  28. Joe Felsenstein: As you would be if someone said Brownian Motion causes ink from an inkdrop to diffuse outwards?

    brownian motion – the erratic random movement of microscopic particles in a fluid, as a result of continuous bombardment from molecules of the surrounding medium.

    I would say that it is continuous bombardment from molecules of the surrounding medium that causes brownian motion. I certainly wouldn’t say that brownian motion causes browning motion.

    But people seem to have no problem saying natural selection causes natural selection.

  29. Mung: But people seem to have no problem saying natural selection causes natural selection.

    Utter nonsense. People (other than you) say that differences in genotypes, leading to differences in phenotypes, leading to differences in viability and fertility, are the sources of natural selection. Or they can say that they *are* natural selection, which does not cause any confusion.

    But making it sound to the unwary reader that natural selection is a mysterious circular concept, as you are doing is purely misleading.

  30. Joe Felsenstein: People (other than you) say that differences in genotypes, leading to differences in phenotypes, leading to differences in viability and fertility, are the sources of natural selection.

    What does it mean to say those are the sources of natural selection? Do you mean they are the causes of natural selection? What else could it mean to say they are “the sources of natural selection”?

    But making it sound to the unwary reader that natural selection is a mysterious circular concept, as you are doing is purely misleading.

    I merely inquired as to whether natural selection is a cause or an effect.

    Your own usage appears to waffle back and forth, as if you are really rather uncertain. Perhaps an “I don’t know” is in order.

  31. Rumraket: So it isn’t illogical, it’s perfectly sensible. Your portrayal of it is just too superficial and simplistic. As usual.

    On the contrary. You have missed the point. As usual.

  32. It seems clear that snails evolved from a common ancestor. Why then are their eyes so different? The obvious answer is that the ancestral snail lacked eyes.

    – The Evidence for Evolution (p. 47)

    Are you kidding me? We’re supposed to accept that the obvious explanation for why the eyes of snails are so different is because the common ancestor of snails had no eyes? What utter crap. Talk about an argument from ignorance.

    Evolutionary arguments in action, and they absolutely suck. If you want me to join the evolutionist camp you’d better come up with better arguments.

  33. Why should snails have such a diversity of eyes? It is not that traces of common descent are wholly lacking, for closely related snails have similar eyes.

    – The Evidence for Evolution (p. 46)

    Why shouldn’t snails have such a diversity of eyes? After all, the author had written just sentences before that “We should find traces of common descent only among closely related animals.” (p. 46)

    Yeah, he actually wrote that. Can it get any better?

  34. I am going to forgive Rumraket for accusing me of misrepresenting the author, because he didn’t have access to the relevant material. Next time perhaps he’ll think twice.

    Major groups of animals have similar eyes, yet these similarities do not extend to comparisons between major groups.

    – The Evidence for Evolution (pp. 47-48)

    The author isn’t just claiming similarity for closely related species, such as the heteropod sea snail, like Rumraket claimed, but to major groups.

    And we know that’s false. And the author knows it’s false.

    You can’t get through even one chapter of an evolutionist book without finding it full of misrepresentation, falsehoods, misleading statements, and downright fallacious reasoning. If that is what it takes to present “The Evidence for Evolution” I have to say no thank you.

    Can’t evolutionists do better?

  35. Mung: On the contrary. You have missed the point. As usual.

    Mere assertion, no argument or explanation. Same shit every time.

  36. Mung: Are you kidding me? We’re supposed to accept that the obvious explanation for why the eyes of snails are so different is because the common ancestor of snails had no eyes? What utter crap. Talk about an argument from ignorance.

    The only other alternatives are that the common ancestor had eyes, then most subsequent snail descendants lost them leaving only one lineage with the “original” set of eyes, then the other descendants regained them in totally
    different ways.
    Or that the common ancestor had eyes, but they were lost, and then they all evolved eyes anew.

    Which brings us right back to Occams razor. The simplest explanation for the pattern is the one he gives.

    Do you have a simpler alternative? Then let’s hear it.

  37. Mung: Why should snails have such a diversity of eyes? It is not that traces of common descent are wholly lacking, for closely related snails have similar eyes.

    – The Evidence for Evolution (p. 46)

    Why shouldn’t snails have such a diversity of eyes? After all, the author had written just sentences before that “We should find traces of common descent only among closely related animals.” (p. 46)

    The full quote is:

    “If this common ancestor lacked a lens, then its eye must have been very simple. It probably didn’t have an iris or conea or any of the other anatomy that we see in the eye of another human, or for that matter in that of an insect. If lens proteins evolved late, then this visible anatomy must have evolved late too. We should find traces of common descent only among closely related animals. Let us test this hypothesis by examining different kinds of animals.” – The Evidence for Evolution (p. 46)

    As I wrote back on page 2, you have a proven history of deceptive quotation.

  38. Mung: I am going to forgive Rumraket for accusing me of misrepresenting the author

    Ahahaha good one, coming from a provenly persistent quoteminer.

    I don’t have access to those pages, so the context is missing. Nobody should take your word for anything. You have no compunction lying by omission.

  39. Mung,
    If the arguments for evolution are so poor then presumably the arguments for whatever you are now were more persuasive then those poor arguments.

    What are you and what was the argument that persuaded you?

  40. OMagain:
    Mung,
    If the arguments for evolution are so poor then presumably the arguments for whatever you are now were more persuasive then those poor arguments.

    What are you and what was the argument that persuaded you?

    I’m curious about (preferably scientific) alternatives, too. I’d hope there were more than just an aversion to ToE.

  41. Mung: You can’t get through even one chapter of an evolutionist book without finding it full of misrepresentation, falsehoods, misleading statements, and downright fallacious reasoning. If that is what it takes to present “The Evidence for Evolution” I have to say no thank you.

    I’d be less inclined to dismiss this hyperbole if you were able to give us an example or two.

  42. Mung could start by listing all the falsehoods in Larry Moran’s text on evolution.

  43. petrushka:
    Mung could start by listing all the falsehoods in Larry Moran’s text on evolution.

    Yes, I often ask for the first error to be quoted in some disputed text so it can be discussed and the evidence for and against it brought to bear.

    As yet, over multiple years, nobody has ever done that. Mung, care to give it a go?

Leave a Reply