Now if we could just get the 1000+ comments on the story posted here instead of there…

They might be right, maybe not. You really ought to say, therefore, “they have proposed a theory as to how the human eye evolved”, rather than “They have elucidated the evolutionary origin of the human eye. They have arguments, they adduce some biological and biochenmical points which they thing makes the case … but this is NOT “proof”, it’s merely argument. You may be persuaded, maybe not. Maybe, quite soon, someone will come along with a refutation or disagreement on those very same grounds (tho, given the eagerness and readyness of most in science to have this particular issue “solved” in an evolutionary paradigm, that’s not too likely).

If their argument were true, if we could somehow prove their argument or if the actual developmental trail were really demonstrable, it would still not disprove an intelligent designer were behind it. The force of the argument is about the same as saying we can prove the same wheel and drive mechanism found in the 2004 Subaru Forester is “related” to that in the 2004 Lexus, that the engineer of the latter took (borrowed, plagiarised, licensed, or simply used the same tested principles of engineering) of one in the other. Why would that engineer do that? Because we human designers utilize common materials and elements, and see no need to reinvent the wheel every time we waqnt to build a wheeled “creature”.

And if we understand the genetics of biological development, we understand they are very much like the programming of a production/manufacturing process. Want to shift from manufacturing a motor scooter and move up to Lexus SUVs? You don’t need to go invent new materials (metals, plastics, rubber, etc.) but only “reprogram” (change the production) instructions your plant follows in converting the raw materials into a new product.

You know, you just need to remember what a “theory” is, and the true philosophy of science. If “relativity” is still a theory, so is “evolution”, however useful or convincing it is.

Bareshiyth, of Alcaide’s Cafe

Given that evolution is at the basis of the modern science of biology, “elucidate the evolutionary origin” is a perfectly natural phrase. If you want to create your own field of pseudo-biology where the theory of evolution is not at the base, go right ahead – but your new field will not have the explanatory power that is found in the science of biology.

If somebody created a pseudo-physics that denied the theory of relativity (and we see people trying this all the time) they have a huge number of explanatory hurdles to cross to match their theory with reality as we observe it. At least half of physics research traces a part of the research topic to a reliance on the truth of relativistic theory, whether directly through relativistic behavior of elementary particles or indirectly through statistical and aggregate behavior that depends in part on relativistic effects. Same problem for any non-evolutionary biology.

There are over a million papers published every year in bio-medical and life sciences; any of those that deal in genetics or comparisons between different species depend on and, through their relationship with reality, strengthen the underlying assumptions of evolutionary theory. Many of the remainder would be indirectly dependent. “Intelligent design” provides no useful linkage that supports any of this research, and therefore has no bearing on the science being done.

Years ago, while a new graduate student at Berkeley, I had the privelege to meet Richard Eakin, who had received a Nobel prize for his work on the evolutionary origins of the pineal gland (which regulates the day/night cycle) at the top of the brain (in humans buried deep beneath the cerebral lobes which have grown up around it).

In birds and mammals, this regulation is done through new circuits which take advantage of the photoreceptive qualities of the two eyes, but in lower animals such as many reptiles and amphibians there is an actual "third eye", complete with microscopic retina, which pushes up or through a hole in the top of the skull. Studies of fossils and embryogenesis in still lower forms (such as jawless fishes) shows there was originally a fourth eye as well, which disappeared when its function as a "light meter" became redundant, and the other two eyes were specialized for visual acuity and posted laterally, rather than upwards as were the pineal group.

The posting on the articles fails to mention that the eyes are part of the brain, so no real anatomical shift has taken place. Similarly so for the pineal. All that has taken place in higher forms (with bigger brains that can make a mini-eye problematically attached at depth, as well as new hair and feather covers which could obscure the light from the end receptors) is that input function is now consolidated in the image-producing eyes. Such consolidations take place all the time in evolution.

Looking at protochordates such as lancelets, one sees still the photoreceptors embedded directly in the brain- no stemmed image forming eyes have evolved, nor light-meter pineal eyes. The fact that we had two pairs of such organs indicates a fourfold symmetry pattern for our ancestors- interesting in light of the genetic evidence for a connection with echinoderms such as starfish, urchins, sea lilies, and sea cucumbers, as well as molluscs. Remember that the next time you look into the four eyes of a snail.

codemaniac

Eric Anderson writes:

This news report is an excellent example of overblown evolutionary hype and agrandizement of research results far beyond what the data actually allow anyone to conclude. Ah, yes, we all want to be the one that comes across a revolutionary research result, and showing how the vertebrate eye evolved would certainly make a Nobel Prizer out of anyone.

What the researchers have discovered, is that an opsin, a light sensitive molecule, in the brain of Platynereis dumerilii is very similar to an opsin molecule in the rods and cones of vertebrate eyes. No doubt this is an interesting and newsworthy discovery.

But let’s look at the evolutionary spin, that is at best wildly inaccurate, and at worst, downright deceptive:

“Scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL] have now tackled Darwin’s major challenge in an evolutionary study published this week in the journal Science. They have elucidated the evolutionary origin of the human eye.”

and

“When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution.”

And let’s not forget the tagline at the beginning of the news report:

“Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved.”

The truth is that the research results are largely irrelevant to explaining the origin of the eye. Further, the results do not even address, much less refute, the challenges raised by evolutionary critics from Darwin’s day to more recent discussions of the eye, such as Behe’s.

We are all given to flights of fancy at times, but let’s keep it out of the research, folks.