Question:
Atheists, why aren't there any fossils of the eye gradually forming?
2009-07-29 18:40:19 UTC
Evolution is a slow process.

How did the eye form then? Were animals just running into things while their eye's were forming?
27 answers:
Dreamstuff Entity
2009-07-29 18:43:17 UTC
1. Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:

* Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).

* Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.

* Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.



Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007).



2. Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:



* Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)

* Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.

* Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.

* Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.

* Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.

* Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).

* The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.

* The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.

* Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.

* The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.

* The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).

* Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.

* Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.



If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of.
2009-07-29 18:51:02 UTC
Why don't you know about the several different eyes? Some animals have the most rudimentary eyes, which are adapted skin cells that can only sense light. Others have much better eyes than us. I'm not going to waste my time listing all the ones in between,but if you took the time to learn a little about evolution you would see the stages of the evolution of eyes. You are not smarter than the scientific community, give up trying to appear so.
?
2009-07-29 18:59:33 UTC
Wow this fight is as good as trying to drown a fish in its own salt water habitat.



To safe guard an eye we have eye lids. When we die our eyes do close and it never fossilizes. The only time we have been able to unearth a being that was dead since 3300BC who still had some of his skin intact was Otzi the iceman and not even HE had eye balls! It's possibly the first thing to decay in the body. They even found out the guy has an intestinal parasite!



What researchers have found out closely related to the formation of an eye is the size and shape of skulls that do show what shape an eye would be.



Other than that your attempt at disproving science fails from stupidity! Any child could have told you this!!!
?
2009-07-29 19:05:31 UTC
Incidentally, I am not an atheist, but eyes are made of soft tissue. Soft tissue does not usually tend to fossilize. However, there is concrete proof of the evolution of eyes in the "placoderm" fossil found in Australia in January of 2008. This fossil reveals clear proof of an intermediate stage of "eye evolution" and is over 400 million years old. By the way, I too have been handed religious pamphlets which ask this same question that you have asked. Now you have an answer to help educate others. Hope this helps you out!
2016-02-27 08:42:10 UTC
I am not an atheist, but please allow me to provide you with answers When has SOMETHING ever came from NOTHING? Never, but even the Bible says that Man was created from mud. It is only logical that an eternal being at some point had to create what we see. No, it is not. Second, Evidence of a global flood (bible story true?) Statement true, but irrelevant The moons Increasing distance from earth. Science, not religion No one has ever found a half dog/half cow. So? Micro evolution/adaptation is clear, but there has NEVER been a species that "gradually" changed to another species. This depends on your definition of species. Science has shown DNA/genetic links between species. Mt. St. Helens evidence of geology. (you have lost me) Here's more. There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory. Depending on your definition of "transitional forms", I would argue that you are wrong transitional forms have been found and more are being discovered. Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be billions more stone age skeletons than have been found. Creationists are wrong again many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found a lot more sodium chloride in the sea a lot more sea-floor sediment (missing your point here) The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms". Wrong again, the Eye and other organs prove the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment (i.e. Evolution) The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages". Alright, so ancient man attempted to explain the world with the limited knowledge that he had. Nothing has changed except that our knowledge is less limited. What is still grossly limited is the ability of some people to comprehend the complexities that Science can now reveal to us. For what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation. (what else could i possibly give you) Entropy requires no explanation.
Gary
2009-07-29 19:31:30 UTC
If you look at animals that are currently alive, you can find examples of what early eyes were like. All organisms with eyes have similar developmental and genetic machinery to grow their eyes, but they use it in different ways. For example, humans have eyes that are very different from those of the fruit fly or the planarian worm, but all these organisms have some of the same proteins associated with the development of their eyes.



In this post I will describe the evolution of the vertebrate eye, which is what you and I have. The key is that each change allowed its owner to have more successful offspring than other members of its species.



The earliest eye was probably little more than a light sensitive spot. An animal can use this to avoid light, protecting itself from predators. This could be only a part of a cell, or one cell could have the job of detecting light while others perform other duties necessary for life, like absorbing nutrients or reproducing.



Later eyes had a cup-like shape. Planarian worms have this sort of structure. It allows them to detect the general direction of light.



Still later eyes had deeper light-sensitive cups for eyes, and animals which mutated to shrink the size of the opening of this cup had something similar to a pinhole camera for eyes. The chambered nautilus has this type of eye, but it's likely that there was a time when some fish had them too. Here's a picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nautilus_pompilius_(head).jpg



Among these animals, an reproductive advantage would come to those who grew a transparent covering of ectoderm (like an embryo's skin) over the pinhole. This reduces infections inside the eye.



The transparent ectoderm can then be expanded into a lens, focusing the image on the light-sensitive retina. This allows better vision, including vision in low-light situations, since the lens can gather a little more light than the tiny pinhole. This requires the use of crystallins, proteins which are found elsewhere in the body.



Later organisms would refine this lens-based eye in a number of ways. Some added multiple layers of eyelids, others became adapted for use out of water, and so on.



It is thought that among fish, these changes came about relatively quickly, in an evolutionary arms race. A small fish with lenses could escape from a predator with pinhole eyes, outcompeting lensless prey fish.



Basically, the story of the eye, and of most other organs, involves improvements on existing structures. The developmental pathways in the eye are fascinating, especially due to the incredible conservation of the proteins involved in eye development. The gene Pax6, for example, which is instrumental in eye development, has been conserved since the common ancestor of the vertebrates and the insects, probably some worm-like creature, was around. We know that because it's found in vertebrates and insects, but we do not know what it was used for at that time.
lainiebsky
2009-07-29 18:46:18 UTC
You don't quite understand fossilization, do you? Eyes couldn't fossilize.



However, every stage in eye evolution exists in one living species or another, so we've been able to show that each step in the process is viable and works by itself.



Evolution of the eye:



http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html



Of course you won't click on the links. You don't want information, you just want to continue to believe the lies creationists tell you.
2009-07-29 18:43:50 UTC
Just because people call you a bonehead, doesn't mean everything in your head is literally made of bone. Since the eyes are soft tissue, they don't tend to fossilize.
Agent
2009-07-29 18:50:32 UTC
Firstly, there are several creatures without eyes or with very poor eyesight. Rhinos, for example, don't rely on their eyes very well.



Also, eyes are squishy. Hence why they are among the first things to rot when a body decomposes.
Sim - plicimus
2009-07-29 18:57:21 UTC
What you are arguing is called "irreducible complexity." Micael Behe already got owned on this in Dover, Pennsylvania.



Better come up with something that is (pardon the expression) evolved enough to fly better than this lame attempt you've made...
VeggieTart -- Let's Go Caps!
2009-07-29 19:10:52 UTC
Bones fossilize. Soft tissue, such as the eyes, do not. Might I suggest you take a few remedial biology and anatomy classes?
Artemisc
2009-07-29 18:44:53 UTC
Soft tissue doesn't form fossils.
?
2009-07-29 18:43:30 UTC
1. Soft tissue doesn't fossilise

2. Many animals have "intermediate" forms of eyes, showing its development from simple light sensitive cells to the advanced eyeballs possessed by mammals.
Mark W
2009-07-29 18:43:59 UTC
I have had a fossil of a glass eye for years!
2009-07-29 18:43:24 UTC
because its a fleshy ball and the sack couldnt last long enough to mash the mud into a form that would hold .. it is interesting though why there arnt one-eyed fossils everywhere ..
Secular Penguinist
2009-07-29 18:42:49 UTC
Eyes don't fossilize genius.
Alfred E. Einstein
2009-07-29 18:49:13 UTC
Yup, that's what they were doing, running into each other and poking each other with their white canes. You're pretty smart!
sprcpt
2009-07-29 18:53:56 UTC
eyes are soft tissue and do not fossilize, get an education and you would understand that.
2009-07-29 18:43:22 UTC
Animals hadn't formed ask your biology teacher.
Jesterr
2009-07-29 18:44:16 UTC
Look, look...see a science book





open book



Learn about soft tissue



Hint..animals find it yummy
2009-07-29 18:51:18 UTC
Ken Miller told me that under ideal conditions a human eye can grow under a rock. Our Intelligent Designer, (God) is still laughing His @$$ off over that one.
Matt
2009-07-29 18:43:01 UTC
Why yes. They had other senses to use, but we didn't always have eyes.
Doodles
2009-07-29 18:53:23 UTC
OK you can check this question off your list of incredibly odd things to ask.
mikesihl
2009-07-29 18:47:43 UTC
Learn about Evolution before you bag it.
notorious.
2009-07-29 18:45:01 UTC
..since when did organic material fossilize?

ESPECIALLY eyes?
the riddick
2009-07-29 18:43:05 UTC
hmmm, i think you've cracked it!!!





oh wait... its bones which fossilise... oh yeh
2009-07-29 18:43:14 UTC
umm



it.knew.we.needed.to.see



hence.why.fish.who.live.in.caves

dont.have.eyes

cause.they.dont.need.to.see


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...