Wortfish wrote:Spearthrower wrote:What a nasty little liar you are. It doesn't matter how many fucking IFs there are in Darwin's account from 150 years ago, because you were the liar trying to pretend that Darwin had said something else by cutting out 75% of the paragraph.
I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later. All that Darwin did was make a suggestion without any supporting evidence.
You're just lying again.
What you did was engage in the entirely typical deceitfulness of Creationists by lifting a sentence out of context, and ignoring all the bit that directly contradicted the usage of that sentence you employed.
It's bare-faced bullshit.
And you're completely fucking wrong because you know precisely jack shit of anything relevant.
Wortfish wrote:Spearthrower wrote:As for relevant knowledge, try modern scientific journals - not a Victorian naturalist writing prior to the advent of knowledge about genes, ffs.
No scientific paper has been published that claims to account for the genetic basis of the evolution of the eye through random mutation and natural selection. We still don't know how an eye is put together, let alone its evolutionary origin.
I've already told you what you can do with your inane arguments from incredulity, and the first sentence should actually read:
I am too lazy, dishonest and lacking relevant competence to review the scientific literature to see whether any papers account for the evolution of the eye.Despite your sweeping claims, the reality is quite different.
Instead of blathering bullshit at me over the internet, type 'Google scholar' into your search engine.
Then in Google scholar, look up 'evolution of the vertebrate eye'.
What do you get?
151,000 results.
So you were not just wrong - you were outrageously wrong. Did you review all 151,000 to verify that your arrogant assertion was valid? Of course you fucking didn't because you're a fucking Creationist, and like all your ilk you think you can just decree reality by asserting it.
The top result on my search is:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2283Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
From 13 years ago - which shows how up to date you are!
Charles Darwin appreciated the conceptual difficulty in accepting that an organ as wonderful as the vertebrate eye could have evolved through natural selection. He reasoned that if appropriate gradations could be found that were useful to the animal and were inherited, then the apparent difficulty would be overcome. Here, we review a wide range of findings that capture glimpses of the gradations that appear to have occurred during eye evolution, and provide a scenario for the unseen steps that have led to the emergence of the vertebrate eye.
Well, that's you wrong then, isn't it?
We can keep going though:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6200000021Dramatic improvement of our understanding of the genetic basis of vision was brought by the molecular characterization of the bovine rhodopsin gene and the human rhodopsin and color opsin genes (Nathans and Hogness, 1983; Nathans and Hogness, 1984, Nathans et al., 1986a, Nathans et al., 1986b). The availability of cDNA clones from these studies has facilitated the isolation of retinal and nonretinal opsin genes and cDNA clones from a large variety of species. Today, the number of genomic and cDNA clones of opsin genes isolated from different vertebrate species exceeds 100 and is increasing rapidly. The opsin gene sequences reveal the importance of the origin and differentiation of various opsins and visual pigments.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 2/pro.2229The camera eye lens of vertebrates is a classic example of the re‐engineering of existing protein components to fashion a new device. The bulk of the lens is formed from proteins belonging to two superfamilies, the α‐crystallins and the βγ‐crystallins. Tracing their ancestry may throw light on the origin of the optics of the lens. The α‐crystallins belong to the ubiquitous small heat shock proteins family that plays a protective role in cellular homeostasis. They form enormous polydisperse oligomers that challenge modern biophysical methods to uncover the molecular basis of their assembly structure and chaperone‐like protein binding function. It is argued that a molecular phenotype of a dynamic assembly suits a chaperone function as well as a structural role in the eye lens where the constraint of preventing protein condensation is paramount. The main cellular partners of α‐crystallins, the β‐ and γ‐crystallins, have largely been lost from the animal kingdom but the superfamily is hugely expanded in the vertebrate eye lens. Their structures show how a simple Greek key motif can evolve rapidly to form a complex array of monomers and oligomers. Apart from remaining transparent, a major role of the partnership of α‐crystallins with β‐ and γ‐crystallins in the lens is to form a refractive index gradient. Here, we show some of the structural and genetic features of these two protein superfamilies that enable the rapid creation of different assembly states, to match the rapidly changing optical needs among the various vertebrates.
The tremendous evolutionary advantages conferred by the ability to respond to light are evident in the success of species from the unicellular, with simple eyespots, to vertebrates with image forming eyes.1 In the animal kingdom, the six phyla (out of 35) that are most widespread and numerous are those that have image forming eyes while many others have light sensing systems. In all eyes, light is absorbed by related members of the opsin superfamily arrayed in either rhabdomeric or ciliary photoreceptor cells that transduce the optical signal through distinct mechanisms.2 Beyond this basic level of light sensitivity, the structures and optics of eyes are extremely diverse. Eyes can be single or compound, gathering, and directing light onto the photoreceptors of the retina with pinholes, lenses, cylinders, or mirrors. Vertebrates use a camera eye with a cellular lens situated behind a curved cornea. In fish, underwater, the lens alone provides almost all the focusing power, while in terrestrial species, in air, the cornea provides most focusing power and the lens is mainly used for fine control of image formation.
The vertebrate lens is derived embryologically from an invaginated ectodermal epithelium, the lens vesicle, and grows throughout life by the orderly proliferation and differentiation of epithelial cells into layers of extremely elongated fiber cells.3 Cell organization is important for lens transparency and focusing, but most of the refractive power of the lens is conferred by high concentrations of proteins, with any highly abundant protein being designated a crystallin. The most widespread and apparently ancient crystallins found in vertebrate lineages are the α‐, β‐, and γ‐crystallins. Nonchordates, even those with superficially similar cellular lenses, use quite different proteins. This shows that lenses arose independently, relatively late in evolution and means the crystallins must have been selected from proteins with pre‐existing functions. In the case of α‐crystallins the original function is very likely a role in protein homeostasis as they belong to the family of small heat shock (stress) proteins that are ubiquitous across all domains of life and most cellular types.4-6 The β‐ and γ‐crystallins are not related to α‐crystallins but are members of another protein superfamily of restricted phylogenetic and tissue distribution. In vertebrates, β‐ and γ‐crystallins are highly expressed in the lens, with low levels found in some other eye tissues, particularly in different retinal cell types.7-10 In many vertebrate lineages, the optical properties of the lens have been also modified to adapt to environmental constraints by loss of some crystallins (generally γ‐crystallins) and by independent recruitment of other proteins which, surprisingly, are usually well characterized enzymes.11 Thus crystallins are all proteins that have been adapted from their original function to be constituents of the optics of animal eyes.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 008-0091-2As we shall discuss, there is now overwhelming evidence that the vertebrate eye did indeed arise through an evolutionary sequence involving countless tiny steps. However, a full picture of the historical sequence remains hidden from our view for two major reasons. Firstly, the most important advances in the organization of what would eventually become the vertebrate eye occurred over 500 million years ago (Mya), prior to the evolution of hard body parts (like a bony skeleton), and as a result, many such advances in the arrangement of the vertebrate eye occurred in animals that are either not preserved, or else are very poorly represented in the fossil record. Secondly, each of those eye arrangements that was superseded by a better arrangement is very unlikely to have survived for hundreds of millions of years in the face of competition from animals possessing better eyes, and as a result, very few extant species retain eyes with the intermediate features. Nevertheless, several extant organisms do appear to retain eyes that provide remarkable windows into the sequence of events that took place. In addition, the genes of vertebrates retain detailed clues about their origins, and modern phylogenetic approaches can help piece together evolutionary sequences. Likewise, the sequence of events occurring during embryonic development can, with careful interpretation, provide information about events that are likely to have occurred during evolution. And finally, certain apparent imperfections in the structure of the eye provide major clues to the evolutionary events that took place.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... 008-0087-yEvidence of detailed brain morphology is illustrated and described for 400-million-year-old fossil skulls and braincases of early vertebrates (placoderm fishes). Their significance is summarized in the context of the historical development of knowledge of vertebrate anatomy, both before and since the time of Charles Darwin. These ancient extinct fishes show a unique type of preservation of the cartilaginous braincase and demonstrate a combination of characters unknown in other vertebrate species, living or extinct. The structure of the oldest detailed fossil evidence for the vertebrate eye and brain indicates a legacy from an ancestral segmented animal, in which the braincase is still partly subdivided, and the arrangement of nerves and muscles controlling eye movement was intermediate between the living jawless and jawed vertebrate groups. With their unique structure, these placoderms fill a gap in vertebrate morphology and also in the vertebrate fossil record. Like many other vertebrate fossils elucidated since Darwin’s time, they are key examples of the transitional forms that he predicted, showing combinations of characters that have never been observed together in living species.
How embarrassing for your self-certain declarations.
Are you a complete fucking liar, terminally incompetent, or just pig ignorant? Oh wait... you're a Creationist, so the answer is "yes".
by 
