Evolution: Always Good For a Laugh.

There has been a claim made as follows:

” Why would a benign mutation be destroyed? Lethal mutations will die out . The eye for for example is believed to have started out as just a patch that was capable of detecting light. See http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/

"Researchers at Lund University wanted to find out how long it might take for a complex eye to evolve. Starting with a flat, light-sensitive patch, they gradually made over 1,800 tiny improvements—forming a cup, constricting the opening, adding a lens—until they had a complex, image-forming eye. It is important to note that every tiny change these researchers made measurably improved image quality. The researchers concluded that these steps could have taken place in about 360,000 generations, or just a few hundred thousand years. 550 million years have passed since the formation of the oldest fossil eyes, enough time for complex eyes to have evolved more than 1,500 times.””

The implication, not stated otherwise, is that they did an actual experiment in the lab that was able, after 1800 steps, to produce a physical, working eye, starting with a light-sensitive skin patch.

But. That’s not what happened, not at all.

I screwed up. I failed to do my due diligence in pursuing the implied claim being made for eye evolution in a lab. Now I have corrected that. I found the source, a 1994 paper by D. E. Nilsson, and Pelger, of Lund University where Nilsson runs a vision lab.

The paper refers to a multitude of speculations and assumptions (see the source for illustrations of their assumptions) which are then used in calculations. Calculations only, and not implemented in actual living creatures, or on living skin. No experiments were done; no data taken.

In fact, the calculations start with the presumption of a complex animal of unknown origin or species, which they presume is blind and “needs sight”. And the model starts with all the necessary elements already in place with no attempt to account for them. But the elements are shaped as a flat, round spot on skin, with light sensitive cells sitting on dark cells which form bottom and sides of their circle. The proceeding assumptions and calculation consider the morphological changes only (shape change only, not functional change as in novel invention).

The authors proceed with their design of an eye shape by going from a FLAT planar patch, then curving (for no non-teleological reason at all) to a global, near-spherical shape. Each slightly increased curvature is said to be selected as a presumed benefit. In fact, everything about this calculated is based in assumptions, many of them, and all of them strictly beneficial, by design, and toward the desired objective (teleology).

"We let the evolutionary sequence start with a patch of light-sensitive cells, which is backed and surrounded by dark pigment, and we expose this structure to selection favouring spatial resolution. We assume that the patch is circular, and that selection does not alter the total width of the structure. The latter assumption is necessary to isolate the design changes from general alterations of the size of the organ."

Note the reference to "design"; they specifically designed this to occur teleologically to their expectation.

"A graded-index lens can be introduced gradually as a local increase of refractive index. As the focal length becomes shorter, the blur spot on the retina will become smaller. The effect this has on resolution was calculated by using the theory of Fletcher et al. (1954) for an ideal graded-index lens (figure 1 c). Even the weakest lens is better than no lens at all, so we can be confident that selection for increased resolution will favour such a development all the way from no lens at all to a lens powerful enough to focus a sharp image on the retina (figure 1 c)."

Declaring the shape to cause "squeezing" extremely fortuitously produces a "lens".

"Having quantified the changes needed for a lens eye to evolve, we continue by estimating how many generations such a process would require. When natural selection acts on a quantitative character, a gradual increase or decrease of the mean value, m, will be obtained over the generations. The response, R, which is the observable change in each generation is given by the equation

R = h2iap or R = h2iVm, (2)

where h2 is the heritability, i.e. the genetically determined proportion of the phenotypic variance, i is the intensity of selection, V is the coefficient of variation, which measures the ratio between the standard deviation, o-P, arid the mean, m, in a population (Falconer 1989). For our estimate we have chosen h2 = 0.50, which is a common value for heritability, while deliberately low values were chosen for both i (0.01) and V (0.01) (see Lande 1980; Futuyma 1986; Barton & Turelli 1989; Falconer 1989; Smith 1989). The response obtained in each generation would then be R = 0.00005m, which means that the small variation and weak selection cause a change of only 0.005 0 per generation. The number of genera- tions, n, for the whole sequence is then given by 1.000 05' = 80 129 540, which implies that n = 363 992 generations would be sufficient for a lens eye to evolve by natural selection. 5."

[...]

The only real threat to the usefulness of our model is that we may have failed to introduce structures that are necessary for a functional eye. Features of many advanced eyes, such as an adjustable iris and structures for distance accommodation, may in this context seem to be serious omissions from the model sequence.

[...]

"If advanced lens eyes can evolve so fast, why are there still so many examples of intermediate designs among recent animals? The answer is clearly related to a fact that we have deliberately ignored, namely that an eye makes little sense on its own. Although reasonably well-developed lens eyes are found even in jellyfish (Piatigorsky et al. 1989), one would expect most lens eyes to be useless to their bearers without advanced neural processing"

[...]

"Because eyes cannot evolve on their own, our calculations do not say how long it actually took for eyes to evolve in the various animal groups. However, the estimate demonstrates that eye evolution would be extremely fast if selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit. This implies that eyes can be expected to respond very rapidly to evolutionary changes in the lifestyle of a species. Such potentially rapid evolution suggests that the eye design of a species says little about its phylogenetic relationship, but much about its need for vision. It follows that the many primitive eye designs of recent animals may be perfectly adequate, and simply reflect the animal's present requirements. In this context it is obvious that the eye was never a real threat to Darwin's theory of evolution."

To re-cap this last paragraph:

1. “… eyes cannot evolve on their own.”

2. Mechanical structure is not the only limit, but it is the only consideration in this calculation.

3. This is the best conclusion: “eye design of a species… says much about its need for vision.” So. The need for vision is determines where selection stops, after it causes the development in the first place.

"Altogether 1829 steps of 1% are needed for the entire model sequence. Natural selection would act simultaneously on all characters that positively affect the performance."

Only positive mutations are allowed and considered in this design scenario.

In our model there are several transformations that would speed up the improvement of function if they occurred in parallel. True to our pessimistic approach, we deliberately ignored this and assumed that all 1829 steps of 1% change occur in series. This is equivalent to a single structure becoming 1.01^1829 or 80,129,540 times longer. In terms of morphological modification, the evolution of an eye can thus be compared to the lengthening of a structure, say a finger, from a modest 10 cm to 8000 km, or a fifth of the Earth's circumference".

Here they not only admit to the complete absurdity of using this calculation as any reasonable proof that an eye occurred in this fashion, they openly ridicule it, in the form of a Reductio Ad Absurdum. Despite this, they submit to the necessary non sequitur conclusion, which is always required to maintain employment in the evolutionary field:

” It follows that the many primitive eye designs of recent animals may be perfectly adequate, and simply reflect the animal's present requirements. In this context it is obvious that the eye was never a real threat to Darwin's theory of evolution.”

Of course, that “context” requires the separate use of the same mutations in the same order to put eyes (however primitive) into creatures that existed at different times. Barring the discovery of an actual common ancestor proving otherwise, (which hasn’t been done despite 150 years of fossil hunting and millions of fossils uncovered). Under the common scientific abeyance to material evidence, then, none exists to support the evolution of the eye, much less the existence of common ancestors for each of the open ended branches not yet attached to the vaunted “tree of life”.

But it’s not just the 1829 step improbability that is being ignored.

It is not the fact that this would be occurring in pre-existing advanced animals which were "blind and needed" eyes, and which are not known to exist in the fossil record, is ignored.

It is not the fact that the necessary neural connections are ignored.

It is not the fact that the necessary mental processing is ignored.

It is not the fact that INFORMATION including introns and exons in each mutation drives the minimum size of the correct mutation forcing each step to absolutely require much greater than 3,000 bits per step - new, correct bits at that - is ignored.

It is not the fact that dilatory mutations would of necessity have halted the process by requiring adverse selection thereby losing all the prior steps in the process, is ignored.

All those things merely stretch out the probability to beyond astronomical odds against it.

The real issue is this:

Is it reasonable to assume that the exactly correct INFORMATION WHICH IS NEW AT EACH STEP occurs randomly and in the correct sequence 1829 times in a row?

Is it reasonable to assume that random events would produce all that exactly correct information, sequentially and just in time?

The question was raised, “why does it have to be correct?” Because if any step in the process is a failure, then the process stops and the endeavor fails to complete because all defects are selected OUT of the population: fundamental Darwinist evolutionary theory. Incorrect data causes organism failures.

Evolution self-refutes because of just this issue: random beneficial mutations absolutely must be accumulated if they are to provide useful novel features. New organs are very complex, including not only the functionality of the organ but also the communication feedback channels with the associated agents at either channel end for regulation of organic activity. For instance, real spheroid eyes contain special fluid and fluid pressure regulation feedback systems, including pumps and valves.

The addition of new information is presumed not to delete existing information. If so, then the genome increases size in the one organism out of the population which mutated. Can mismatched DNA produce offspring? DNA is a palindrome, reading the same backwards as forwards. Defects in the palindrome are not beneficial to the organism because reading DNA in the reverse direction is used to check the validity of the DNA translation of the forward direction. If they don't match, the transcription is considered a failure and is stopped.

The palindrome DNA issue also applies to mating failures, because the sizes no longer match as they should, intra-species. Sterile hybrids and failure to hybridize at all are examples.

Another internal contradiction: the information required for the novel organ to occur is stored in DNA, raising the internal contradiction: which came first, organ or information? Neither can be justified to have occurred before the other.

Natural sciences are based on the axiom of cause and effect, with the cause acting in a deterministic fashion on an entity which is controlled by initial conditions. Entropy precludes any information being created by this process, and in physics it is not observed that information emerges from deterministic processes at either the macro-level (Newtonian) or at the micro-level (quantum particle). Entropy says exactly that: disorder increasingly occurs, always. There are no truly reversible systems, and there is no open system that receives information via outside input of extra photonic energy.

And yet, life is different. That is a perpetual contradiction which physicalist evolutionists ignore because (like all things evolution) there are no actual empirical facts available to the evolutionist in order to deal with the issue.

And now back to my error: due diligence is late, but done. Evolutionary theory is once again shown to be mere imaginary stories, fantasies and calculations based on those fantasy stories. And it’s all said to prove Darwinism.

For evolution, “proof” is a very, very low bar, indeed.

And finally, this entire exercise is a fantasy. It was my error in allowing the fantasy to be wielded as evidence for evolution. Error: corrected.