How Can Dawkins Explain The Perfect Eye In Our Brains?

This was a very good read, thank you.

Thats a nice copy and paste... instead why don't you try reading more scientific work instead of ID dribble.

Insight Into Eye Evolution Deals Blow To Intelligent Design

Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the βγ-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved.

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.

The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.

The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Another scientifically inclined mind. Excellent

Don't worry about our Allah buddy... he's never been able to make any real responses outside of copypasta.

Watch: Convicted fraudster Harun Yahya.

Wait for it...

Also... perfect?

Perfect?

Oh, that's why the optic nerve is in front of the retina. Leaves a nasty little blind spot. You can locate little tests that will show this. That must also answer the reason why our rods and cones will have a leftover "echo" of what we saw if we stare at something for a bit too long.

Must be why a sizable amount of the population needs glasses.

Tell me, does your Atlas or noble whatsadowhatsit explain why something that is "perfect" would require assistance or modification to achieve the desired effect?

And then there's tetrachromacy. Do your books give any insight on this? Science sure does

You really are quite cluless. Would you like our scinetific experts to explain to you?

He wouldn't understand. You've gotta have a basic concept of science first. That requires an education. The fact that he bases arguments on flat out inaccuracies and quotemines from 150 years ago shows that he possesses neither.

If our eyes are "perfect", why can't we see infrared? Fish can.

If our eyes are "perfect", why can't we see ultraviolet? Birds can.

If our eyes are "perfect", why does our vision degrade over time?

Again, this sprouts from lack of education. Any engineer or "designer" that built the human eye, as it sits, would be fired and driven out of the field. The eye is complex, yes, but far from perfect. We have blind spots, horrible night vision and an extremely limited visible spectrum. Often vision correction is needed. LASIK has become very popular as an alternative to glasses and contacts. If the eye were perfect, none of those things would exist.

So you've either got an imperfect system building upon the best available parts, or a designer who slept through 95% of his classes. Pick one.

Great posts Sabz and Grouch. I think you've put this issue to rest.