Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
This thread is the first part of what (I hope) will be a two-part series. In this thread I will accept ideas for a particular model I would like to build. In the second (proposed) part, I will collect the best ideas, and then present my working model for further scrutiny.
I would like to build a model demonstrating the evolutionary heritage of the entire human vision system: The eyeball, the development of the optic nerves, and the mental processes that go along with all that, etc.
It might take the form of a step-by-step narrative, in the end. "at this stage, the brain looked like this, while the eye looked like that. A few centuries later, they both adjusted into this other configuration" - that sort of thing.
It is quite possible that such models exist, but I have not been able to find any convenient references that bring all this together, in one easy-to-digest place, yet.
I have already started digging into the standard locales:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html (and other TalkOrigins things)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/eyes_01 (and other Berkeley stuff)
The Howard Hughes Institute, for example: http://www.hhmi.org/news/zuker20061001.html
And, of course, Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins.
Etc.
But, any links to more places would be nice. Especially links to actual papers. I might not be able to read the whole thing, but a good abstract, or two, could go a long way.
I am NOT interested in any pure speculation, guess-work, assumptions, etc. Only evidence that has independently verifiable observations behind it, will be accepted.
The model, itself, will of course, be considered a provisional one, and subject to change, as the quality of evidence improves. But, I do NOT want be accused of merely speculating on this. I want REAL science supporting every step, as strongly as possible.
And, for an added bonus: any such material that has a direct impact on helping us resolve specific eyesight problems will be very much appreciated, and such contributors will get a "gold star" of some sort, later on.
It should be noted, for those who are going to ask, that I do not intend to do any original research for this project. I simply wish to paste together the best of available, existing research, and I will include all of the references, of course.
Oh, and one more thing: If anyone claims they can build a better model for the history of vision, using something else, (such as Intelligent Design), you are welcomed to try to present your model, here. But, please only contribute models that improve our understanding of the eye, with ever greater precision. Do not flood this thread with claims that evolution of the eye is impossible, because we already have lots of material demonstrating otherwise (see links above for some examples. I can provide more, if you really need me to). We are here to BUILD models, not to scoff at the very attempt.
Remember: We want to see the eye evolve together with the nerves, brain processes, and other relevant aspects. Details about each piece is important. But, ultimately, they will all be glued together, into a single set of steps. So, gear your references in that sort-of direction, if you can.
Now, let's get started!
I would like to build a model demonstrating the evolutionary heritage of the entire human vision system: The eyeball, the development of the optic nerves, and the mental processes that go along with all that, etc.
It might take the form of a step-by-step narrative, in the end. "at this stage, the brain looked like this, while the eye looked like that. A few centuries later, they both adjusted into this other configuration" - that sort of thing.
It is quite possible that such models exist, but I have not been able to find any convenient references that bring all this together, in one easy-to-digest place, yet.
I have already started digging into the standard locales:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html (and other TalkOrigins things)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/eyes_01 (and other Berkeley stuff)
The Howard Hughes Institute, for example: http://www.hhmi.org/news/zuker20061001.html
And, of course, Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins.
Etc.
But, any links to more places would be nice. Especially links to actual papers. I might not be able to read the whole thing, but a good abstract, or two, could go a long way.
I am NOT interested in any pure speculation, guess-work, assumptions, etc. Only evidence that has independently verifiable observations behind it, will be accepted.
The model, itself, will of course, be considered a provisional one, and subject to change, as the quality of evidence improves. But, I do NOT want be accused of merely speculating on this. I want REAL science supporting every step, as strongly as possible.
And, for an added bonus: any such material that has a direct impact on helping us resolve specific eyesight problems will be very much appreciated, and such contributors will get a "gold star" of some sort, later on.
It should be noted, for those who are going to ask, that I do not intend to do any original research for this project. I simply wish to paste together the best of available, existing research, and I will include all of the references, of course.
Oh, and one more thing: If anyone claims they can build a better model for the history of vision, using something else, (such as Intelligent Design), you are welcomed to try to present your model, here. But, please only contribute models that improve our understanding of the eye, with ever greater precision. Do not flood this thread with claims that evolution of the eye is impossible, because we already have lots of material demonstrating otherwise (see links above for some examples. I can provide more, if you really need me to). We are here to BUILD models, not to scoff at the very attempt.
Remember: We want to see the eye evolve together with the nerves, brain processes, and other relevant aspects. Details about each piece is important. But, ultimately, they will all be glued together, into a single set of steps. So, gear your references in that sort-of direction, if you can.
Now, let's get started!
