Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

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 ERRĪ²2, 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).


  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Doublee said…

    I don't think we have a complete explanation for evolution until we can describe the evolution of what I call the three "p's".

    These are parts, plans, and process.

    To build something, we first need a plan, that is what are the specifications for the object we are going to build.

    We also need to define the process.
    Once we know what we are going to build, we need to know how to take the parts we have and assemble them according to the plan.

    And of course we need the parts.

    Where is all the information for the plan, the process, and the parts stored and how do the plan, the process, and parts come together to build the final product?

    How does the information for the plan, the process, and the parts come into existance in the first place? It seems that the phrase "random mutaion" doesn't quite describe this.

    If there is any information that discusses this topic, I would appreciate knowing about it.

  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    That was a good addition to this thread- thank you.

    Unfortunately I doubt you will be receiving an answer to your question any time soon.

    We have already been told that natural selection does not plan. So cross out that "p" from your wish-list.

    Parts- well they just pop up from time to time. You know those pesky random mutations and all.

    As for process- when parts pop up that match in some way then those parts may join together to form a larger part. And sooner or later enough of those will arise to give rise to some functionality that will give the organism an adavantge over the others in the population.

    That is the evolution explanation, anyway.

  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Of course none of this suggests design. At all.

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…


    Thanks for once again demonstrating you are retarded.

    The OP wasn't supposed suggest design. It was supposed to and did show that the anti-ID position is totally lacking any substance at all.

  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What's this blog all about then?
    Promoting design OR attacking "Darwinism"?

    You seem confused.

  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm the opening post doesn't attack "Darwinism".

    It demonstrates that the modern theory of evolution is without substance.

    My blog promotes ID and shows that the modern theory of evolution is without substance.

    Ya see Rich, in a world in which there are 2 options- telic and non-telic- attacking one is promoting the other.

    IOW you are not only confused but you are so stupid it is obvious you never had an original thought in your life.

    And your posts promote ID by demonstrating anti-IDists are a clueless lot.

    (now I am glad I checked in while I was checking for an important email)

  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thanks for committing the homesian fallacy Joe and bonus points for the false dichotomy. Go read some Popper.

    This is why you think arguing against "Darwinism"/NDE is an argument for design. You are very much mistaken, and your "science" is vacuous because it explains nothing.

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are too stupid to follow along.

    For example I said telic and non-telic, nut you had to twist that to switched that to "Darwinism/NDE and design".

    And yes, in any situation in which there are TWO choices, arguments against one does indeed add support for the other. Logic 101.

    BTW Popper is not only outdated but he has been found wanting:

    see falsificationism

    As far as scoience goes you have never demonstrated you understand anything. The modern theory of evolution is totally vacuous for the many reasons provided, this OP included.

    Not only that the anti-ID position is not even based on science.

    For example no one can tell me what scientific methodology was used to determine that the universe and living organisms arose via non-telic, ie stochastic processes.

    And the bottom line is if your position had anything of substance to offer it should be easy to refute ID. IOW if you could substantiate your anti-ID position ID would go away.

    But instead all you have are your nonsensical posts which can't even stay on-topic.

    BTW design explains the universe, as well as living organisms- as in why they exist. That is much more than the anti-ID position explains.

    Not only can we not test the premises of the modern theory of evolution, those premises cannot be refuted. Evolutionitwits can always retreat to "we haven't givne it enough time" or "nature is more clever than we are".

    But I can be shown to be wrong- so tell me ole ignorant one, just how can one test the premise that chimps and humans not only share a common ancestor, but that the physiological and anatomical differences observed arose via any of the proposed non-telic mechanisms?

    If you fail to do so then I have proved my points- that you are an ignorant fuck and your position is hopelessly bogus.

  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "BTW Popper is not only outdated but he has been found wanting:"

    More quality denialism. I think if you read the article rather than going on a Google search, the article is concerned with falsification as a criteria for demarcation. You still seem to claim some omniscience. Falisification's power is it allows revision and improvement through observation and experiment.
    It also allows us to sidestep the problem of induction.

    In order for something to be judged Telic you must know the mind of the creator to understand its proposed purpose. For it to appear to have purpose for us is not enough. Logic 201.

    be carefull with your dichotmies. Is something solid or not solid. Is it high or not high? Childish thinking from you, Joe.

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order for something to be judged Telic you must know the mind of the creator to understand its proposed purpose.

    Reality refutes your stupidity.

    Stonehenge- first we determined it was designed and then years of research was required to gain the knowledge of it we now have.

    Forensics- we don't have to know the murderer or his/ her intentions to determine a dead body became that way because of an external agency.

    SETI- Same thing. They don't claim to know the minds of the beings they are trying to detect.

    Geez Rich if you can't even side with reality what does that say about all of your other posts?

    Oh, that's right, you have never posted anything of substance.

    BTW there isn't anything that can fasify the theory of evolution short of the designer coming here and telling you that you were designed.

    If you want to live by Popper you must be willing to suffer the consequences.

    Forrest Gump (IQ of 75) is smarter than you Rich...

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order for something to be judged Telic you must know the mind of the creator to understand its proposed purpose.

    If one knew the mind of the designer then one wouldn't need a design inference- design would be a given.

    Have you ever been to Nasca, Peru? I have. The lines and drawings were first determined to be intentionally designed and then work was commenced to figure out what the designers were doing.

    IOW Rich, once again you prove you are also a clueless tool who has never had an original thought in his life.

    Now please get baclk on-topic, Either you have something to say about the evolution of the eye/ vision system or you don't. If you don't then please keep out of this thread- read but don't respond.


Post a Comment

<< Home