Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye



Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design like to point to what they call the “irreducible complexity” of the eye as proof of the existence of a designer/creator. In other words, they like to say that complex components of our physiology like the eye could not have come about through a process of evolution because they are not of any use until everything is in place and working. In this excerpt from his lecture “Growing Up In The Universe: Climbing Mount Improbable”, Professor Dawkins demonstrates how something complex like the eye can indeed evolve.

See all five “Growing Up In The Universe” lectures by Richard Dawkins in their entirety here:
http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/1991/richard-dawkins

45 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye”

  1. 🤣🤣🤣🤣Did it evolve eye sockets? can it happen by itself, I mean even you need help to put things together. This is good example that shows why evolution isn't science. you have to believe it happened, never saw it.
    Science is what is observable and repeatable. You even claim to know it would take 250 thousand generations for the eye to evolve? is that how much you think those listening to you are ignorant idiots?

    Reply
  2. Y’all believe this? This is sad. “Eyes can evolve at the drop of a hat”…. How is showing an insect with many small eyes evidence that an eye can evolve at the drop of a hat? A hole in the wall is supposed to represent an organism that evolved a eye starting with a hole? How can a random process direct new cells to be added. How can they see what creature they will be reproducing with? How can they eat without having a stomach, did they stomach evolve first or the mouth a thousand years later? Please think critically

    Reply
  3. This doesn't address the most basic and preliminary argument. That the lens (or opening) and retina (or receiver of light in the first example) can not develop simultaneously nor can they develop independently of one another in the current evolutionary model. Put another way, when he says "He can detect light and dark", what device receives that information? At minimum, the evolution must start with 2 elements.

    Reply
  4. Imagine how many people reject God sacrifice on the cross Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior imagine how many people are going to howling in a burning internal hellfire think about it people think we’re nothing we came from nothing and we are nothing well that’s funny there’s not enough time and if you go out there and look at more information you would see that there is a creator we don’t just randomly are random.

    Reply
  5. Is this from his tremendous Christmas Lexture?
    That is definately older then 2012. they were in the early '90-ties
    loved watching them and wished I was in that auditorium.

    Reply
  6. Here Dawkins is still young, he hadn't understood anything about entropy even then.

    Time is also a problem in evolution, because if things take too long, everything just falls apart again.

    Without a clear cause, nothing happens, that has never been observed.

    Nothing can be built up after a long time, well, he doesn't know that yet as a biologist.

    Everyone can believe anything, but then you should not present this as science.

    Reply
  7. A simple light sensitive cell (or group of cells) so the animal can tell which way the light is coming from.' Well, then Dawkins believes that this simple organism can 'tell' (anything). He's giving it reason. And anyway, the 'light sensitive' cell would have to be connected to the means of locomotion. Then the organism would have to learn, by trial and error, what light even means before the nascent 'eye' could be of selective advantage. Dawkins skips over these vital steps using the idea that 'the animal can tell'… I don't think so..

    Reply
  8. Dawkins is so stupid that he assumes an ancient living thing decides one day to have an eye or precursor(!)of it.
    He says nothing how this desire is acheived over millions or billions of years in the molecular level.
    He abuses science for his atheistic ideology.

    Reply
  9. This whole video can be completely debunked as in the first instance he already assumes that the said organism has light sensitive cells that can detect light and dark. Where did those cells miraculously appear from then mr Dawkins? The whole video is a load of nonsense as he never explains how these initial light sensitive cells come about. This is the whole issue with the evolution hypothesis

    Reply
  10. Where science ends storytelling begins.
    This is just-so storytelling ala Rudyard Kipling's how the leopard got its spots.
    Where did the light sensitive cells come from Dawkins?
    From your magical primordial soup?

    Reply
  11. So we start with the perception of and/or the encounter of light and darkness. What a wonderful illustration of Genesis 1 – where it describes the first things perceived of our world were the light and darkness.

    Reply
  12. And interesting discussion. We assume that Nautilus has a predator, a predator that can… see it? and the Nautilus adapts for this? Perhaps we should frame the Nautilus's need to eat and see it's food… but does that provide as a compelling argument? I would argue the predators must evolve and adapt just as fast, if not faster than their prey.

    Reply
  13. How do we determine confidence in what each of these animals "see" when we are analyzing the projections with our fully formed eye? Don't each of these steps require a commensurate neurological step at the same time to transmit/process the data? Perhaps it is addressed somewhere?

    Reply
  14. That couldnt be more simplistic and erratic. The necessary faith in such a simplistic scenario increases even more when one considers the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems.These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease. In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur. For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons. In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin. The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II. Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducin forcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP. The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase. When this happens, phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs. This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell. This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel. This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell. This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell's membrane. This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain. The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision. Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain. If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, vision will not occur.

    Reply

Leave a comment