I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Thats because I never said the eye was irreducibly complex. No new morphological features like an eye cannot arise solely thru the mutation of DNA and natural selection. The reason it cannot is because it would require an entirely new dGRN. We know that dGRN's cannot be changed one little piece at a time because they aren't flexible. They work like control systems. Go up a few comments you'll see where I quoted Myer and Davidson . The quote from Davidson is from a paper of his good the quote and it should come up.

Please give me the source. I saw your paper about sexual dimorphism but didn't see the one you are referring to in this post. I've never heard of any gene sequence being immune to mutation and I think you are misunderstanding it big time. I tried looking up dGRN but came up with nothing useful.

New features arise slowly and happen as a result of insertions, deletions, and other types of modifications to the existing genetic code. What precisely are you claiming cannot be modified?

I posted the diagram to help the person understand how complex features can evolve.
But they can't evolve that way?

Prove it?

a reply to: Barcs

Great example. Thank you for not just telling me to read a book.

One question though if I may...what gives a rounded or depressed (fig b) an advantage over the more flat light sensitive area of cells (fig a)?

A2D

a reply to: Barcs

I never said anything about it being immune to mutation. I said slowly mutating DNA in the genome will not get you to a new morphological feature such as an eye because the organism would need a new dGRN. The paper below explains that dGRN's are not flexible because they are so interdependent, because of the dGRN's being interdependent you cannot slowly mutate each part of the dGRN as the rest of it will break when a few parts change.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Excerpt:

No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work.

Excerpt:

That is, interference with expression of any of the key genes of these subcircuits always causes an immediate loss of function phenotype, such as ectopic expression if a spatial repression function is interrupted in cis (by mutation of repressor target sites) or trans (by application of a morpholino).

Excerpt:
eo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree


More surface area for photoreceptors.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Random mutation as the mechanism that facilitates body plan morphogenesis is highly speculative, yet I have talked to you enough to know that you treat body plan morphogenesis as a fact of reality even though Science really has no idea how it actually occurred or if it is even capable of occurring.

I actually managed to get a hold of a gentleman by the name of Jean-François Gariépy whom holds a doctorate in Neurology, and is a former researcher at Duke University in the Faculty in Biology and Artificial Intelligence.

I had inquired on the concerns you are having with GRNs, body plan morphogenesis, and the level at which random mutation and natural selection have. His response confirms what I had posted over through my research on the subject. Here is an excerpt from the detailed response he gave to me:

Evolution is not bothered at all by the existence of gene regulation networks. First, these gene regulation networks are operated by proteins and sequences of mRNA that are themselves produced from sequences of DNA. In other words, the network of molecules that regulate gene expressions are the product of genes themselves, other genes; these genes have nothing particular from the point of view of evolution; they increase in frequency in the population when they favor fitness and decrease when they don't.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
From my knowledge only part of this statement is true. The assumption that there was once males is not true in fact the paper below argues against the idea that males ever existed.
www.sciencedirect.com...

This link directs to an article that requires payment to read. Is there a link you could send me that does not come from a pay site?

Also, the Bdelloidea are a class of Rotifer, and Rotifers are dioecious and reproduce sexually or parthenogenetically. (Barnes, Robert D. (1982). Invertebrate Zoology. Philadelphia, PA: Holt-Saunders International. pp. 272–286)

Here's the lineage of Bdelloidea



Of course, this is just one of many of the examples I provided. The Teiidae family of lizards have several species within it that are also parthenogenic. It's pretty evident they diverged from species that original reproduced through Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The primitive form still required a transmission of egg and sperm.

Not necessarily. As many members previously mentioned, complex structures like eggs and sperm didn’t spontaneous appear. They too are subject to gradual changes through successive generations like every other adaptation in Evolution. Again, you’re thinking at this from the perspective of a false premise.

The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a damaged section of their DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in a haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was. The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself
(Bernstein H, Byerly HC, Hopf FA, Michod RE; Byerly; Hopf; Michod (1984). "Origin of sex". J. Theor. Biol. 110 (3): 323–51) (Olivia Judson (2002). Dr. Tatiana's sex advice to all creation. New York: Metropolitan Books. pp. 233–4.)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
If that is the case why would sexual reproduction ever be selected? You can't just assume that because we reproduce sexually it must have been selected at some point in the past. That would be assuming evolution to argue for evolution.

Saying “being open to the fact that advantages in Sexual Reproduction may not be as dominant as previously claimed” does not mean I am claiming it has no advantages. And the further understanding of GRNs dismisses that notion anyway.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I agree we have technology that lets us do some cool stuff. However fossils don't tell you anything about the way an animals skin looked.

Actually we do have some fossils that show what coloration feathers (and I believe skin too) definitively would be now. We also have fossils with soft tissue (of dinosaurs) as well, and we can tell musculature by bones, which also leads to details on how the skin could have looked. (I can cite these if you’d like)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
They don't tell you what organs that animal had what traits were required for those specific organs and features.

Actually, we also have some fossils that do show organs. (I can also cite that upon request)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
DNA when exposed to the elements is done for in about a week. Finding actual DNA with a fossil is incredibly rare, and even when we do, it is mitochondrial DNA which is only partial genetic information. There is no way to observe what was needed and if what was needed could have actually evolved thru whatever mechanisms we put forth. Even if we manage to do it in a lab that is no guarantee that is how things actually happened.

Again, we don’t need to observe the very Eukaryotic cells billions of years ago to show how they could have formed by the evidence we have in modern life. The same goes for DNA. The descriptions we’ve formed based on these types of subjects are still based on observations. And no one will ever claim that the hypotheses formed are virtually infallible.

The same exact process can be said about a number of scientific fields of study. Not everything needs our direct observation when we can indirectly observe it and imply what could have happened.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
What you are forgetting is that GRN's work like a network hence the name. Everything within that network is interdependent. Mutating one part at a time doesn't cut it because they work very similar to a control system.

Explained at the beginning of the post.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm aware of the antiparasite explanation for sex, Müller's Ratchet and all that. Moreover, I accept it as probably true. But if we look at organisms like Volvox, which are clearly implicated in the invention of sex, they were also the inventors of death. That is very interesting, and I don't think the parasite theory explains it.

However, it's a long way from this to rejecting evolution by natural selection. It may be, though, that it is only a special case of a broader, as yet unformulated theory, just as Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics.

Yes, that is very probable

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
By the way, I think you're doing a fine if somewhat too technical job.

Sooner you than I. I'm up to here with the pearls-before-swine routine.

Thank you very much

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb, scorpio84

The paper cited by ServantOfTheLamb is a tendentious creationist fabrication from a fake 'research organization' called the Biologic Institute, which is affiliated with the infamous Discovery Institute. The paper has never been peer-reviewed, and the few citations it has enjoyed are mostly by the author's Biologic Institute cronies and other ID pseudoscientists. It has zero scientific value.

Here's the paper, a load of creationist rubbish.

And here's the list of citations that exposes the whole back-scratching circle.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Biologic Institute:

The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. It is funded by the Discovery Institute with the stated goal of doing biological research to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design. Source

So, another 'scientific organization' that starts out assuming what it is trying to prove.

A real scientific publication, New Scientist, investigated the Biologic institute. Read what happened when their reporter visited The God Lab.

The whole thing is a big creationist fraud, the details of which are revealed here.

We may assume, for the time being, that ServantOfTheLamb tabled the 'paper' here in good faith. Be advised that it is totally useless, and that further discussion or quotation of it will serve only to discredit those who stand upon it. They have no case.

originally posted by: UniFinity
well even though I do not take scientific view of the world to be true or complete truth, but anyway what you are doing here is amazing. I have never seen such devotion to answering questions - a few posters have blown my mind away with the depth of your replays and I just want you all to know that I have read all of them and learned a lot and due to to much info probably forgotten a lot already - will have to read again sometime later. But I really appreciate the time you took for us who want to know more.Thanks!

Thank you very much!

originally posted by: UniFinity
From what I get science knows about the hows but what about the whys?

Correct; at least when "why" is used in the sense of philosophical purpose.

originally posted by: UniFinity
Why would cells want to experience life? When earth was formed and stable, what was the reason cells started to merge together in the way they did which brings us to first simple organisms.

This is actually a question for Abiogenesis, of which there are several hypotheses that have evidence which points to a few different possibilities. I only know the basics behind these hypotheses, so perhaps someone more educated on the subject could elaborate the details.

However, I can address one point you've made. It's not so much that cells 'wanted' to begin evolving, but more so that once the process of self replication begins, it's kind of like an intrinsic propulsion for it to continue once it does, rather than an implied conscious choice to.

Here's a simple article that has a model that explains a possible origin: Link

originally posted by: UniFinity
Why did the first mutation occur and what logic is behind that

Again, the 'first mutation' isn't really accurate to say, because Evolution is simply defined as reproduction with variation through successive generations. So each time anything reproduces, it's subject to mutation to some degree. Each species has a different mutation rate, but every generation is effected by them. Each new human generation is subject to around 64 mutations.

Answering this question precisely is also subject to hypotheses of Abiogenesis.

originally posted by: UniFinity
And if we go further, why does a cell or a group of them want to develop better eye or anything else for that matter?

Again, it's not a conscious action, but rather, a natural compulsion. When random mutations occur, natural selection is the mechanism that helps weed out or continues development of those mutations. If the mutation benefits the organism, that organism has a greater chance at reproducing and thus continuing the existence of that gene.

originally posted by: UniFinity
How does a group of cells even know that they are for instance - the eye and why do they want to mutate. Cells are not intelligent and therefore why did mutations even occur. If you say that is nature, that is also blind belief without evidence.

We all have DNA in us, and when a DNA sequence is permanently altered, that alteration is what a mutation is. So what causes a DNA sequence to change in any way? DNA can be altered due to a failed copy of itself being made during cell division. DNA can also be altered through external, environmental factors as well. We can test and observe these alterations in lab settings quite easily. This is how mutation occurs, and the longevity of the existence (and possible further development) of these mutations depends on Natural Selection.

originally posted by: VVV88
I understand evolution and abiogenesis are attempting to answer different questions; but I am curious if your personal belief system precludes a creative intelligence responsible for the "programming" of DNA and setting life on Earth in motion and potentially alternating it along the way?

Just as a note, Evolution and Abiogenesis aren't belief systems (I can explain if you wish).

To answer your question though, Science doesn't really have any position on deities. Science is merely a tool in which we attempt to explain the functions and processes in the observations we make in the natural universe. So there's not real reason to confirm or deny something outside of nature, that hasn't been observed. So, essentially, it is possible that a creative intelligence could have been responsible for the things we are observing.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

Great example. Thank you for not just telling me to read a book.

One question though if I may...what gives a rounded or depressed (fig b) an advantage over the more flat light sensitive area of cells (fig a)?

A2D

As Peter Vlar mentioned earlier, surface area is one major advantage. However, I would argue that the primary advantage would be the ability to tell direction. With a flat surface, direction is extremely difficult to determine. With a depressed cup, and the cells being within it, the cup acts as a blockage to light from specific angles, and thus allowing the organism to tell where the light is coming from.

a reply to: Ghost147

I actually managed to get a hold of a gentleman by the name of Jean-François Gariépy whom holds a doctorate in Neurology

Who do we listen to the guy who has no research papers on dGRNs or Eric Davidson whose specialty was dGRNs.

First, these gene regulation networks are operated by proteins and sequences of mRNA that are themselves produced from sequences of DNA.

They are not strictly based on sequences of DNA because they are a network. Each part is based on DNA for sure, but the network as a whole is connected. So slowly mutating one part at a time does not work. Again all you have to do is go read Davidson's Paper.

Of course, this is just one of many of the examples I provided. The Teiidae family of lizards have several species within it that are also parthenogenic. It's pretty evident they diverged from species that original reproduced through Sexual Reproduction.

Well again you posted a drawing . The drawing assumes evolution is true its not evidence to show evolution is true. First, I never told you they didn't reproduce that way. I was simply letting you know that they dont have males.

Excerpt:
" The class Bdelloidea (5, 6) consists entirely of females reproducing by apomixis, in which diploid eggs produced by mitotic division develop parthenogenetically into females."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now the paper above mentions the paid paper I gave you and a couple other sources that argue for ancient asexual scandals as they put it.

Excerpt of Article mentions:
"The success of the bdelloids seems to contradict the population genetic theory and empirical evidence, which show that asexual animals have shorter evolutionary life spans and less ability to diversify than do sexual organisms (1, 2, 9). Consequently, the few old, diverse asexual groups have been called “ancient asexual scandals” (10, 11), and their asexuality has been questioned."

"The two articles recently published in PNAS (3, 4) described the latest steps in an ongoing molecular evolutionary analysis that provides convincing evidence of bdelloid asexuality. One of the genetic criteria that can been used to verify the absence of sex (11, 12) is allelic sequence divergence: in a diploid apomictic lineage, the two alleles of a gene are expected to accumulate different mutations over time and gradually become more different in sequence."

The cited paper points out some issues the writer believes to these papers made, so if you'll look at all of those you'll get a good picture of what we know. Unfortunately you won't be able to read the ancient asexual scandals but its great.

We'd have to look at the lizards on a case by case basis. Although I do see a way past males and females having to evolve at the same time, but to think they did is just an assumption.

Saying “being open to the fact that advantages in Sexual Reproduction may not be as dominant as previously claimed” does not mean I am claiming it has no advantages. And the further understanding of GRNs dismisses that notion anyway.

My point here was to show you that anything we say about sex evolving is highly speculative. If by further understanding of GRN's you mean what your friend said I am sorry but I see nothing in his response that you couldn't have learn from Davidson's paper. He is just saying evolution occurred I gave you experiments showing you that if evolution occurred it wasn't thru the mechanisms of neo-darwinism. Davidson even says that the claims are counter factual.

Again, we don’t need to observe the very Eukaryotic cells billions of years ago to show how they could have formed by the evidence we have in modern life.

Again this means that you are just assuming those things evolved in to modern life. Your saying ok, I can see some similarities between this and this so it evolved. Genetically speaking, right now we have no mechanism by which things can do such a thing. The more we learn the less likely it seems to be the case the body plan morphogenesis occurred.

The descriptions we’ve formed based on these types of subjects are still based on observations. And no one will ever claim that the hypotheses formed are virtually infallible.

Because its not a normal science. It is a science that is not actually observable. I don't care how good our tools are they don't give us everything we need to know about the past in order to have empirical evidence of some of evolutionist claims.

Actually we do have some fossils that show what coloration feathers (and I believe skin too) definitively would be now. We also have fossils with soft tissue (of dinosaurs) as well, and we can tell musculature by bones, which also leads to details on how the skin could have looked. (I can cite these if you’d like)

I wouldn't mind seeing these and the other fossils just cause I think that is cool but I heard about the dino bone and I wouldn't mind checking up on where it was found. I am willing to bet that fossils like that are exceedingly rare as well. I wouldn't mind seeing a paper on how we can derive musculature from bone structure either.

Not everything needs our direct observation when we can indirectly observe it and imply what could have happened

Name another science that calls its hypothetical implications as fact and give me an example cause I can't think of one.

a reply to: Astyanax

Great. An entire post of nothing but the genetic fallacy.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No. An entire post of the truth about the paper you posted, its author, and its sponsors. Committed creationists one and all.

However, I do not propose to argue with you. As Pontius Pilate said, 'what I have written, I have written.'

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Who do we listen to the guy who has no research papers on dGRNs or Eric Davidson whose specialty was dGRNs.

I posted an excerpt from an article that Eric Davidson wrote which confirms the information that Jean-François Gariépy's quote describes.

I think you're simply misreading the concept.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
They are not strictly based on sequences of DNA because they are a network. Each part is based on DNA for sure, but the network as a whole is connected. So slowly mutating one part at a time does not work. Again all you have to do is go read Davidson's Paper.

I did... Here is a direct quote from one of his articles about GNR's:

What is a GRN?
Development is controlled directly by progressive changes in the regulatory state in the spatial domains of the developing organism.
link

Sorry, but you're misunderstanding his work.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Well again you posted a drawing . The drawing assumes evolution is true its not evidence to show evolution is true. First, I never told you they didn't reproduce that way. I was simply letting you know that they dont have males.

The drawing is of nothing other than to show what evolved from what. There's no reason for me to post a giant article proving that each of those things really are related, in the order they are depicted in, and each and every article that supports it because it's totally unnecessary in order to get my point across. You're requesting for this incredible amount of evidence when a fraction of it explains what's needed to come to a conclusion.

As for your statement, it is simply incorrect, as I have shown, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it for some reason - or are currently incapable of understanding the information. (that's not meant to be an insult, but I cannot possibly make these concepts any more clear)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Excerpt:
" The class Bdelloidea (5, 6) consists entirely of females reproducing by apomixis, in which diploid eggs produced by mitotic division develop parthenogenetically into females."
...
The cited paper points out some issues the writer believes to these papers made, so if you'll look at all of those you'll get a good picture of what we know. Unfortunately you won't be able to read the ancient asexual scandals but its great.

Sorry, I don't think it's necessary for me to prove that Bdelloidea did or didn't previously have males. It was one example out of many that I made that show how a species can have one gender. It is simply a waste of time to prove or disprove one example if there are other clear ones that were part of the original argument anyway. That, and it's quite late and I simply do not have the time or drive to do so. I'll review them later out of personal interest.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
We'd have to look at the lizards on a case by case basis.

No, we don't. We know for a fact that they diverged from species that had both genders.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Although I do see a way past males and females having to evolve at the same time, but to think they did is just an assumption.

That's all we can do is make assumptions. Nothing is conclusive when we're looking so far back and have very little (to no) evidence from that period of time. These are never implied as conclusive claims. All we have is evidence that life can do these things now, and we can make educated hypotheses based off of the evidence and observations around us on how it could have occurred.

You seem to still be viewing these things as absolute claims, whilst bringing up very valid points on how 'well it could have been this' when no one is arguing against you that it couldn't have been 'that'. We accept that we will never be able to claim with absolute certainty that it happened 'this' way instead of 'that' way. We're searching for clues, not answers, because all we have are clues.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
My point here was to show you that anything we say about sex evolving is highly speculative.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't highly speculative. In fact, I, and others, have admitted to you several times that we realize that we cannot be certain.

The answers I first gave you weren't claims of certainty, they were claims of possibilities. A lot of scientific studies (arguable all) are possibilities to varying degrees.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
If by further understanding of GRN's you mean what your friend said I am sorry but I see nothing in his response that you couldn't have learn from Davidson's paper.

I believe you may have missed the response where I directly quoted one of Davidson's papers, and came to my own conclusions, which my source confirmed.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
Again this means that you are just assuming those things evolved in to modern life.

Yes, I am aware that I am claiming we’re making assumptions. Those assumptions aren’t baseless, however. We’re using our observations now to propose how it could have occurred back then.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
Your saying ok, I can see some similarities between this and this so it evolved. Genetically speaking, right now we have no mechanism by which things can do such a thing. The more we learn the less likely it seems to be the case the body plan morphogenesis occurred.

You do realize that GRN’s are simply a part of Evolution. It’s not like it’s discovery debunks Evolution. It still occurs, we just now have a better understanding of it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
Because its not a normal science. It is a science that is not actually observable. I don't care how good our tools are they don't give us everything we need to know about the past in order to have empirical evidence of some of evolutionist claims.

We do not need to be there to observe what happened in order to make a hypothesis with evidence.

We've never witnessed a star forming, or a planet forming, but we have observed different stages of all these events and can form a clearly defined description of the stages needed, and how each stage functions.

The National Academy of Sciences defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. (www.scientificamerican.com... t/)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
I wouldn't mind seeing these and the other fossils just cause I think that is cool but I heard about the dino bone and I wouldn't mind checking up on where it was found. I am willing to bet that fossils like that are exceedingly rare as well. I wouldn't mind seeing a paper on how we can derive musculature from bone structure either.

Absolutely. And yes, they are extremely rare.
Link
soft tissue including skin and muscle have been fossilized

link
Link shows several cases where coloration can be determined

link
link 2 (more details)
Internal Organs

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=2009]
Name another science that calls its hypothetical implications as fact and give me an example cause I can't think of one.

These aren’t ‘hypothetical implications’, they are observations. You seem to think that don’t offer any insight at all to anything, when the observations are in fact evidence to show that life can indeed achieve ‘this’ particular formation.

Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

a reply to: Astyanax

You don't have to argue with me because it obviously is the genetic fallacy.

"A Genetic Fallacy is a line of 'reasoning' in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. "

a reply to: Ghost147

I could see that making sense... what about the other figures of the eye on the figure barcs provided? B to c? C to d?

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

If I could give an "above and beyond" award to this post I would. Isn't there a way to nominate it or is that something at mod's discretion? I feel that reaching out to an expert in the field to clarify something is worthy.

Servant's post threw me for a loop at first, I was trying to figure out the connection between genetic mutations and GRNs. Something wasn't adding up in the conclusion he drew. Thanks for clarifying that and getting a legitimate expert's take on it.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

I could see that making sense... what about the other figures of the eye on the figure barcs provided? B to c? C to d?

A2D

I will list them all.

emergence of A: the ability to detect light is a huge advantage over others for obvious reasons.

A to B: Gives a wider range of angles from which the light can be detected.

B to C: Better protection of the photosensitive cells, finer directional sensitivity

C to D: Better protection of the eye area

D to E: improved clarity of vision and focus, better protection of the eye

E to F: Better focus of light, clearer vision

learn.genetics.utah.edu...

This site gives more details.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

I could see that making sense... what about the other figures of the eye on the figure barcs provided? B to c? C to d?

A2D

Barcs does a great job explaining the advantages. :Cheers:

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Ghost147

If I could give an "above and beyond" award to this post I would. Isn't there a way to nominate it or is that something at mod's discretion? I feel that reaching out to an expert in the field to clarify something is worthy.

Thanks. It's all a part of debating, though.