• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Snowballs and Eyeballs

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
Long
Guardian review of 2 books:

Snowball Earth: The Story of the Great Global Catastrophe That Spawned Life As We Know It
by Gabrielle Walker

and

In the Blink of an Eye: The Cause of the Most Dramatic Event in the History of Life
by Andrew Parker

Both look at the early history of the Earth, and the explosion of life in the Cambrian era. They seem to agree a big freeze (or more than one) was involved, but the 2nd book argues that it was the evolution of the eye that spawned the sudden diversification of life. (A new theory to me.)
 
all hot air

try this link Link above now corrected! -ryn
Apparently all the creatures with eyes share some kind of genetic link, which means that the eye probably evolved once, before the Burgess shale period. But what might have caused it is the question.

There is a lot of interest in the effects of the various levels of gasses in the Earth's atmosphere

- the level of CO2 might have been low in the late Precambrian, and possibly also in the Mississipian 'ice age' , just as it is today during the holocene ice age periods.
-Warming might have been triggered by the release of methane from hydrate deposits, and the level CO2 was probably ten times as high as it is today during the Mesozoic, making the interior of the continents uninhabitable.
-Oxygen might even have been particularly rich in the Pennsylvanian, allowing huge insects to florish.

controversial and interesting stuff.
 
Re: all hot air

Eburacum45 said:
Apparently all the creatures with eyes share some kind of genetic link, which means that the eye probably evolved once, before the Burgess shale period. But what might have caused it is the question.
I seem to remember reading (possibly in one of Dawkin's books) that eyes had developed several times in different ways in different species, and the fact they are similar is down to convergent evolution.

Eyes were being discussed, IIRC, as a counter to the creationist type question, "How could something as complex as an eye possibly arise by evolution?"

The response claimed that every step of the evolutionary process, starting from just a few light-sensitive cells on the skin, would have confered an advantage to its possessor, and this would have been preserved and improved over time by natural selection.
 
I seem to remember reading (possibly in one of Dawkin's books) that eyes had developed several times in different ways in different species, and the fact they are similar is down to convergent evolution.
I am sure Dawkins (may his tribe increase) is right, but I have read about the genes 'eyeless' and 'small eyes' which are analogues in insects and mammals, and possibly other phyla as well.
Things change fast in genetic evolutionary theory, as shown by recent moves to put humans in with chimpanzees.
 
Re: Re: all hot air

rynner said:
Eyes were being discussed, IIRC, as a counter to the creationist type question, "How could something as complex as an eye possibly arise by evolution?"

Creationism and Intelligent Design aside, this old chestnut has been floating around for centuries. Teleological argument innit. Paley's version (for example) roughly claims that if we found a watch we would infer a watchmaker, hence if we find the complexities of the world (like the marvellous and oft-quoted eye) then we should infer a creator. The response i keep hearing from modern biologists is, in short, "the eye isn't that great, there's loads of stuff wrong with it - it could be made far better really - and it needn't go wrong so often!" They reason all these silly faults wouldn't be designed and are indicative of natural variation and evolution.

:D
 
I seem to remember reading (possibly in one of Dawkin's books) that eyes had developed several times in different ways in different species, and the fact they are similar is down to convergent evolution.


I spent a really tedious forty hours of my life in my final year at university in an optional course on the chemistry and function of the eye. Alan Cooper who did a lot of the early calorific studies on Rhodopsin conformational changes taught it. (This still did not make the course interesting)

What I do remember is that the eyes of Humans and squid were very similar physiologically, but insects and snakes were very different, but on a chemical level they were all very similar indeed. He also pointed out that eyes come and go like hens teeth and horses toes but that the basic light receptor, cis-retinal, is fairly common across all light sensitive creatures, although other creatures with broader ranges of light sensitivity (i.e. near UV) used a variation on the theme.

He explained this with the idea that these genes remain and when a creature that has ceased to need eyes suddenly needs them gain, these genes are easily switched back on. This then means that a lens and associated musculature need to re-evolve, but the actual difficult stuff (the exact biochemistry) are held in reserve by almost all living things. Our knowledge of DNA and all things biochemical have advance a huge amount in 20 years, but I’m not sure if we have found that most living things can code for cis-retinal.
 
I'm old and it was twenty year ago....

In fact for those interested in Retinal/ Rhodopsin and the three basics eye type, see this link
In fact squid, insect and vertebrates vary very much physiologicaly but everything on Earth with sight use 11-cis-retinal. At least one thing in the previous post was right

I will not quote from memory
I will not quote from memory
I will not quote from memory
 
In the Blink of an Eye
In the Blink of an Eye
The Cause of the Most Dramatic Event in the History of Life
By Andrew Parker
Free Press, 336pp, .95

Vision is the window through which our consciousness stares. Eyesight is an astonishing innovation, and its arrival on earth must have been the cause of much evolutionary mayhem. But what is colour? How do eyes work? From what do eyes evolve? What happened when the first creature saw the world?

These mind-bending considerations are fodder for Andrew Parker's new book. I first encountered Dr Parker, who is now a Royal Society Research Fellow at Oxford University's department of zoology, when he was a visiting scientist at the Australian Museum in the mid-'90s.

He approached me to do a story about his "light-switch theory", which argued that one of the most significant events in evolution, the Cambrian Explosion 543 million years ago, was caused when trilobites evolved eyes. The Cambrian Explosion refers to the sudden appearance - in the space of a few million years - of life as we know it. The Cambrian is the birthplace of the hunter and the hunted, the decorated, the armed and the colourful.

Parker's idea looked so simple it seemed almost a statement of the obvious - life was stalled until the first creature evolved vision and then, once an eye was in the world, the food chain as we know it exploded onto the stage. Parker is the first scientist to make this claim.

His thesis is that it was the birth of an eye that allowed creatures to see each other, opening the way for predation, camouflage, decoration and an end to the worm world that had existed for hundreds of millions of years.

It was also Parker who made a truly awesome discovery - that Cambrian creatures were covered in diffraction gratings. Diffraction gratings are microscopic lines that break up light, creating the same colourful sparkles we see when we move a CD under light. In other words, he proved that Cambrian animals were spectacularly coloured.

Unfortunately, his book is not an easy read. It is marketed as popular science but is hard work even for someone like myself who has had the benefit of many hours with Parker discussing his work. He alludes to this fact himself as late as page 268:

"At this point I feel like a university lecturer who has just finished teaching a foundation course - weary but relieved. Not a single educational stone has been left unturned in the bid to reveal the facts and figures needed to progress to a new stage in learning. There is a certain amount of relief because this is where things become interesting and exciting. We are now equipped to tackle evolution's grandest event of all. We can now go back 543 million years, to the beginning of the Cambrian."

Sadly, at this point the book is just a few minutes away from ending and some of the most important questions are glossed over. The toughest question of all he admits that he cannot answer: "What triggered the evolution of the eye?"

This fundamental problem is dealt with in the final seven pages and left me deeply dissatisfied. None of these criticisms, however, can detract from what will be to every reader a book with dozens of revelatory moments.

"Just think," Parker writes, "all those wonderful colours we see around us, wherever we are, do not actually exist. In the environment there is no colour, only objects that happen to deflect different types of electromagnetic radiation. Roses are not beaming out reds, nor do leaves generate greens."

This is a book that can genuinely claim to change the way you see the world.
 
What I do remember is that the eyes of Humans and squid were very similar physiologically

Squid have the best eye design going, the body of the nerve cells linking the rods to the optic nerve runs behind the retina, as opposed to in front in mammals, so they have slightly better sensitivity and no blind spot.



I am sure Dawkins (may his tribe increase) is right, but I have read about the genes 'eyeless' and 'small eyes' which are analogues in insects and mammals, and possibly other phyla as well.

Most likely they have some common distant ancestor that evolved this gene, and as all it does is specify where the eyes are going to be, there isn't really any evolutionary pressure for it to change. And if a random mutation corrupts this gene, the phenotype is eyeless, which is a very major survival disadvanage.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Most likely they have some common distant ancestor that evolved this gene, and as all it does is specify where the eyes are going to be, there isn't really any evolutionary pressure for it to change. And if a random mutation corrupts this gene, the phenotype is eyeless, which is a very major survival disadvanage.
Yes, much of what Natural Selection does is maintenance, the weeding out of defects. Evolutionary change only becomes necessary if the environment changes.
 
My A level biology teacher was a born again christian and occasionally used to try and drop creationist ideas in, one of them concerned something called the 9+2 arrangement, which is a configuration of (IIRC) tubules which occurs both in the basal body of flagelli in protozoa and in the rod cells in the eye.

To my mind there is nothing mysterious about this, as all it really means is that a bit of DNA got recycled for a different application, which in some ways seems more probably than a whole structure evolving from scratch.
 
Back
Top