A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[TheLurch]

How can an organ start off as functional when it hasn't developed yet? It seems rather obvious that organs begin as non functional, then develop, then become functional over time.

It may seem that way to someone who doesn't understand biology, but it's not true. New organs tend to form through modification of existing ones. Those modifications can include duplications, addition of new functions, increased specialization, and more.

Take the hydra, for example. It's got an internal digestive cavity, but only one orifice - waste goes out where the food came in. Add a second orifice, and it now has a pass through gut. Add an internal division, and you can have a stomach/intestine like specialization. (NB: this is an example, not what happened). The entire time, the gut is functional, but you end up with multiple organs.

[Roy]

Take the hydra, for example.

You think JM will understand this? I know what you're referring to, but JM will be picturing a Herculean foe, a large jug or a pink flower.

[TheLurch]

You think JM will understand this? I know what you're referring to, but JM will be picturing a Herculean foe, a large jug or a pink flower.

You forgot "Hail Hydra!"

[rogue06]

You think JM will understand this? I know what you're referring to, but JM will be picturing a Herculean foe, a large jug or a pink flower.

The Greek myth concerning it has been advanced as evidence that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans.

[shunyadragon]

The evolution of the eye from the simplest light sensitive spot in algae, which had an advantage for sensing light, through increasing complexity and variety in all the phyla of the animal kingdom from Jellyfish to Humans. The study of the genetics throughout the history of the light sensitive spot in one celled animals to the complex eye involve the same genes. In all the species involved there has always been a function for survival from the simplest form to the complex.

The following is one of many research articles that describes the genetic relationship of the eye from the simplest to the complex. The same genes are involved.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15653558

New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors.

Gehring WJ1.
Author information
Abstract
Recent experiments on the genetic control of eye development have opened up a completely new perspective on eye evolution. The demonstration that targeted expression of one and the same master control gene, that is, Pax6 can induce the formation of ectopic eyes in both insects and vertebrates, necessitates a reconsideration of the dogma of a polyphyletic origin of the various eye types in all the animal phyla. The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye. Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history. The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom. The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes. In contrast to the adults, which have highly evolved eyes, the Planula larva of Tripedalia has single- celled photoreceptors similar to some unicellular protists. For the origin of photoreceptor cells in metazoa, I propose two hypotheses, one based on cellular differentiation and a more speculative one based on symbiosis. The former assumes that photoreceptor cells originated from a colonial protist in which all the cells were photosensitive and subsequent cellular differentiation to give rise to photoreceptor cells. The symbiont hypothesis, which I call the Russian doll model, assumes that photosensitivity arose first in photosynthetic cyanobacteria that were subsequently taken up into red algae as primary chloroplasts. The red algae in turn were taken up by dinoflagellates as secondary chloroplasts and in some species evolved into the most sophisticated eye organelles, as found, for example, in some dinoflagellates like Erythropsis and Warnovia, which lack chloroplasts. Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians. In cnidarians such as Tripedalia the step from photoreceptor organelles to multicellular eyes has occurred. These two hypotheses, the cellular differentiation and the symbiont hypothesis, are not mutually exclusive and are the subject of further investigations.

© Copyright Original Source

The BBC did a good job bringing this together in one program. I may cite this next if available,

[JohnMartin]

Embarassing at best. This question exposes the fact that the author of this empty argument does not understand its emptiness.

Jim

Jim ignores the arguments presented in posts 7, 26 and 45 and proceeds to tell me to establish . . .

Creation - top down approach.

Evolution - bottom up approach.

Jim - bottom down approach.

JM

[JohnMartin]

And when examples are provided of them being found in the fossil record he merely hand waves them off saying that they don't count.

Rogue ignores the 'much from less' problem and accuses me of handwaving when he is ignoring the problem presented.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Genesis Park makes sites like AnswersinGenesis and Institute for Creation Research look like serious scholarship in comparison.

Publications on Evolution by Oxford Univeristy Press make Naturalistic materialist, 'more from less' theory look like serious scholarship in comparison to the revealed doctrine of creation.

The modern scam continues as a child of the Enlightenment.

JM

[shunyadragon]

If you have access curiosity stream this is a comprehensive layman's explanation of the evidence for the evolution of the eye.

Leaps in Evolution - Origin of the Eyes

https://app.curiositystream.com/video/1442

[oxmixmudd]

Jim ignores the arguments presented in posts 7, 26 and 45 and proceeds to tell me to establish . . .

Creation - top down approach.

Evolution - bottom up approach.

Jim - bottom down approach.

JM

Not true. You just haven't made it to my first post where I begin addressing the points in post 45 which is one you claim supports the referenced assertion.


Jim

[TheLurch]

Rogue ignores the 'much from less' problem and accuses me of handwaving when he is ignoring the problem presented.

He doesn't. Plenty of natural processes create more from less. There is no problem.

[shunyadragon]

Rogue ignores the 'much from less' problem and accuses me of handwaving when he is ignoring the problem presented.

JM

This appears to be the old false canard about entropy and evolution. Your objection needs more explanation, because the earth system has an abundant excess energy available from the sun and the eternal heat of the earth.

[rogue06]

This appears to be the old false canard about entropy and evolution. Your objection needs more explanation, because the earth system has an abundant excess energy available from the sun and the eternal heat of the earth.

His reasoning relies heavily upon the classic argument from incredulity (since I don't understand this, therefore it cannot have happened).

[JohnMartin]

He doesn't. Plenty of natural processes create more from less. There is no problem.

An effect always has less being than the cause from the nature of cause an effect. Your claims are in error in principle.

JM

[JohnMartin]

His reasoning relies heavily upon the classic argument from incredulity (since I don't understand this, therefore it cannot have happened).

Rogue is using the fallacy of the false accusation.

JM