Evolution of the Eye: The Lens

A technical examination of the evolution of the lens.

What makes the lens of the vertebrate eye unique, where does the information come from to make a lens, and how could a lens be the result of evolution, rather than design.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Eye
• Lens
• Fibers
• PAX6
• gene
• genetics
• homology
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• development
• biology

[BayersHeroine]

Thank you for posting this. You are very well-spoken.

I look forward to watching more of your videos in the future.

5 stars out of 5.

[CivilHuman]

Awesome video man. thx for sharing.

[hisham031170]

@wild0hawk According to the theory of evolution, it can, all it takes is just imagination.

[hisham031170]

Wow, to make it as convincingly as it may sound, comparison has been made to other creatures lacking certain features to prove that eyes are not irreducible complex. But is that so? Human eyes are unique to human, and people may ask how lens came into being in the first place? All animals have functional organs, and to say that taken away visual cortex from human, the eyes still can see because some other animals don't have visual cortex? How about the mechanisms to protect the eyes itself?

[wild0hawk]

i have these two cute french students liveing next door, if i keep looking at the wall in an attempt to see through it, do u think i will eventually develop a see through the wall vision and see wat colour panties they have on ?

[hekskey]

Quick question: You do realize that when it comes to the eye, the claim of irreducible complexity, at least within the ID community and Mike Behe himself (who coined the phrase), does not relate to the eye but to *vision*, right?

[cadman2300]

Awesome video indeed. Especially on the technical details.

[Mortison77577]

@C0nc0rdance

My broader point is that you don't need phylogenetics and cladistic analysis to do biology. Biology supports the phylogenetics, not the other way around. The only reason why this is getting repetitive is because you're ignoring my point. Your statement that you can't do biology or do research in some area of biology without evolutionary theory (or phylogenetics or cladistic analysis) and that it's like trying to do physics without friction is madness and insanity.

[Mortison77577]

@C0nc0rdance

I don't think that the molecular clocks are "astounding" because they often conflict with fossils, but some of that may be due to problems with the fossils, not the molecular clocks, although some molecular clocks may conflict with others. The issue with the molecular clocks is still at least partially distinct from the the issue with phylogenetic trees that differ depending on what molecule is used.

[C0nc0rdance]

@Mortison77577

Genes do not all evolve at the same rate because they are not all under the same selection. Sometimes mutations are convergent to a shared sequence, not divergent. However, the accuracy and concordance of molecular clocks is nothing short of astounding.

The regions that do not show unselected drift are the ones that are under selection, and therefore functional in the cell.

Again, do you have a broader point?

[C0nc0rdance]

@Mortison77577

This is getting repetitive and boring. Grouping gene sequences into a branching hierarchy is called phylogenetics or cladistics. Grouping animals on broad characteristics is Linnaean taxonomy.

What's your ultimate point?