Posted: Apr 11, 2020 4:23 pm
by The_Metatron
Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

So much wrong in so few words.

Let's see.

Sensitivity to light alone is not enough? No one would ever suggest that is all there is. Organisms already had flight responses when they detected they were being attacked, whether that be from pressure on their cell wall, or from perturbations in the medium around them - the solitary light sensitive cell simply gave them another way to detect the approach of a threat and to then employ existing behaviors in response to that detection.

Sensitivity to light is not a trivial development. It requires light-sensitive proteins and phototransduction circuits, the combination of which require more than just a couple of mutations.

No 'slight twitch' - a concerted effort to move away. Detect sudden loss of light - move. It doesn't need to guarantee successful evasion of a predator; it only needs to offer a statistically greater chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, or longer to reproduce more to ensure that the gene producing that photosensitive spot would be preferentially retained.


You don't seem to understand that a rudimentary system would not produce that kind of response. The robust response which you envisage would only happen once further changes and improvements had been made.

The thing is, this is such basic stuff, and the eye... I mean, seriously? Why do Creationists invariably rattle on about the eye when it's been studied from the context of evolutionary biology for the better part of a century? Just how outdated you folks are!

Maybe because Darwin wrote the following:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

No, Wortfish, He wrote this:

Charles Darwin wrote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.