So, What is Responsible for our eyes/ vision system?

Earlier this year some anti-ID evolutionitwits had an issue when I stated that we don't know what is responsible (what gene or genes) for our vision system- meaning there is no way we can say, scientifically, that it evolved or from what it could have evolved.

In a failed attempt to refute what I stated I was offered the following:


Comprehensive Analysis of Photoreceptor Gene Expression and the Identification of Candidate Retinal Disease Genes

The functional breakdown of the genes selectively expressed in rods is shown in Figure 3. We saw a broad spectrum of functional categories of rod-enriched genes (see Figure 3 legend for selected examples and Supplemental Table S10 for a full list of genes). We saw a number of uncharacterized putative zinc finger transcription factors only expressed in rods, along with a number of other more broadly expressed transcription factors and coactivators, such as ERRβ2, Sox11, and All, which showed strong enrichment in rods. We observed several mammalian homologs of Drosophila genes, such as muscleblind and nemo-like kinase, which have been implicated in later stages of photoreceptor development (Begemann et al. 1997; Choi and Benzer 1994 and Zeidler et al. 1999). We observed many protein kinases and phosphatases, along with a TNF family ligand and several potassium and calcium channel subunits.

(and as I said at the time):

For those who do not know, photoreceptors are cells (in the eye- the retina to be exact) that detect light.

The human eye has two types of photoreceptors- rods & cones. Rods do not discriminate among colors of light. Cones provide us with color vision.

With that said all the article is discussing is genes that are expressed in rods. Again rods are eukaryotic cells- cells with a nucleus- meaning they contain the same DNA that all other cells in your body contain in their nucleus. (red blood cells aren't really cells, they are "formed elements")

What the paper is discussing are the genes that are expressed in rods. That they are expressed in rods does not make them responsible for rods.

That distinction goes to the control genes- that is the genes that control and direct cellular differentiation.

What the paper does demonstrate is why some eyes do not function as well as they should.

What was "requested" is something that demonstrates we know not only what creates each differentiated cell- ie the instruction set that says "build cones, rods, bipolar cells, horizontal cells, etc"- but also what imparts the configuration required for functionality.

Yet our understanding of cellular differentiation is elementary at best. But we are making progress and we do know quite a bit about our eyes/ vision system.

Knowledge is a good thing for the more we know now the easier it will be for future generations to raise their kids in a design-centric society. But anyway...

My point is, and always has been, that no one can say any vision system "evolved" (never-mind the mechanism) until we have knowledge of what sequence(s) of DNA is(are) responsible for the construction.

Only then can we determine if such a transformation (the alleged series of eyes/ vision systems) is not only theoretically plausible but also biologically reasonable.

That we don't have such knowledge and teach that eyes/ vision systems evolved just demonstrates that at least parts of biology are not based on science rather they are based on imagination, wishful thinking and a ton of promissory notes.

"Science" may get away with that sort of nonsense but engineering cannot tolerate it. And that is why I chose engineering over science- that plus the fact that science needs technology (my field).