The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked
Part 3 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the Eye. Dr. Scott criticizes claims by proponents of creation science that the vertebrate eye is too complex a mechanism to have evolved by natural sel
John Connolly: So you spoke a little bit about flagella. The other argument that is always drawn up is the Mammalian Eye, so could you maybe dispel that a little bit for us, the idea that the eye is too complex of a system to have evolved, that it must have had some intelligence involved? Eugenie Scott: You know if you read the creationist literature, and I donâ€™t want to wish that on anyone, but if you do youâ€™ll find that they are very fond of quoting a statement that Darwin made on the Origin of Species where, and I havenâ€™t memorized it but itâ€™s something like â€œIt is really quite preposterous to imagine something like the vertebrate eye, itâ€™s so snazzy (he didnâ€™t say snazzy), itâ€™s got all these parts that work together to bring light to the eye and form an image, and nobody would think it would be possible for my natural selection to produce thisâ€, and the creationists all say â€œsee, Darwin himself says that the eye canâ€™t evolveâ€. But theyâ€™ve never really looked at the book because they just keep quoting each other, and if you actually go to the Origin of Species and you find that passage and you continue reading it, the very next sentence is â€œBut I can assure you that thatâ€™s not the case, that I can do thisâ€ and then he goes on with this wonderful description of how itâ€™s quite possible to take a very simple structure, and with very few modifications improve its ability to assist an organism, in other words in Darwinâ€™s own terms it had adaptive value. And he then does this wonderful thing, which Darwin did all his life of course [as] he was a wonderful naturalist, he went out to nature and he looked at nature and said â€œthereâ€™s something thatâ€™s kind of like what Iâ€™m talking aboutâ€, and if you look at the eye of a snail itâ€™s hardly more than just a slight pigmented spot on the surface of the skin there, but having a pigmented spot does allow you to tell light from dark, so thatâ€™s adaptive to a snail; that would actually help a snail get along better, so any ancestral primitive snail or creature that had this light sensitive spot would be at an advantage and so it would live longer and as we say today would pass on its genes more than a creature of the same species that didnâ€™t have that. And then he goes on and says â€œWell you know hereâ€™s another kind of creature, another little invertebrate creature the limpet that has that pigmented spot, but it also has kind of a little bit of an indentation on the skin where that pigmented spot occurs and thatâ€™s an advantage; thatâ€™s actually better than that snail eye because having an indentation as well as that pigmented spot allows you to get an idea of what direction the light is coming from, so thatâ€™s even better than being able to tell light from dark. And by the way, if you look at the physiology of this, being able to tell light from dark is useful for many creatures, I mean lots and lots and lots of organisms, for setting the biological clock for certain physiological reactions that happen. Being able to tell what direction the light is coming from is very useful because that might help you navigate toward food or away from heat or away from other kinds of phenomenon that you might want to avoid or be attracted to, and then Darwin goes on and find another animal, and he points to it as having not only some wiring down here at the bottom and this cup shaped thing, but actually the cup is formed almost to a pinhole, and itâ€™s kind of the equivalent of the old fashioned pinhole cameras that I know people had in the early 20th century. Nobody has them now of course because weâ€™ve all gone far beyond that, but a pinhole camera is a big advantage over just having a cup because a pinhole camera actually can allow an image to focus on the back of the eye. So anyway, he [Darwin] builds up this system step by step by step by step and actually on NCSEâ€™s website weâ€™ve got a little video talking about the evolution of the eye in the same fashion. And then you add a lens and thatâ€™s an improvement as well, so what Darwin does is look at the eye, the final product of the vertebrate eye which is a very snazzy kind of organ, itâ€™s really good about getting images to the eye and getting that information to the brain, but he shows you how from very, very simple beginnings there is an adaptive value to each step until you finally build up to the final product. Now what the intelligent design folks want to do is they want us to start there, they want us to start at that final complex snazzy multi-component form and say â€œ[it] couldnâ€™t possibly form by natural causesâ€, but actually itâ€™s very possible for it to form. And whatâ€™s kind of interesting about the eye story is that there were some Swedish scientists (and I am sorry I am having a senior moment, I donâ€™t remember the exact reference) who did some computer modeling for how long would it take, given such and such a mutation rate for changing the surface of the skin and causing the cup forming and the pinhole eye and the formation of the lens from crystalline structures that are already there, and how long would it take to evolve an eye from something like Darwinâ€™s original pigmented patch and it found that it could be done in something like 100 million years or something which, geologically speaking, is a drop in the bucket.
irreducible complexity, evolution, darwin, darwinism, science, religion, origin of the species, id, intelligent design, creationism, creation science, eugenie, scott, cshl, dnalc, cold spring harbor, laboratory, lab, dna, learning center
- ID: 16982
- Source: DNALC
- Download: MPEG 4 Video
Part 2 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott.: Debunking Intelligent Design. Dr. Scott criticizes claims by creationists that flagellated bacteria (flagellum) are an example of irreducible complexity. She concludes that examples of irreducible co
Part 4 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Science, Religion, and Evolutionary Theory. Dr. Scott discusses the history of creationism/intelligent design, which was revived in the United States in the 1960s. Some conservative Christians believe
Part 5 of a 7-part interview with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Creation Science on Trial. Dr. Scott discusses the legal challenge to the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act introduced in Arkansas in 1981. Evidence by creation scie
Part 1 of a 7-part interview with Eugenie C. Scott: Religion, Science, and Theory. Dr. Scott describes intelligent design as a fundamentally religious explanation that has no scientific basis. She discusses the difference between hypothesis and theory,
Part 7 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: The Bible, the Flood, and the Grand Canyon. Dr. Scott believes that affirming science and believing in God are compatible. However, claims by creationists that the Grand Canyon was created by a flood
Part 6 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Creation Science Brings Religion to the Classroom. Dr. Scott discusses attempts by the creationist movement to introduce religion into high school science curricula. She makes the point that because w
The mission of the DNA Learning Center is to prepare students and families to thrive in the gene age. We envision a day when all elementary students are exposed to principles of genetics and disease risk; when all high school students have the opportunity
Students participants in the 2014 Urban Barcode Project describe their projects and reflect on the experience, including the challenges and rewards of doing independent student research.
Students and teachers who participated in the 2012 Urban Barcode Project reflect on the experience, including the challenges and rewards of doing independent student research.
Training in Advanced Genomic Biology for Chinese Students at CSHL