Seed Media Group

Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Search this blog

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

When I wrote this program, I never thought that it would evolve anything more than a variety of treelike shapes. I had hoped for weeping willows, cedars of Lebanon, Lombardy poplars, seaweeds, perhaps deer antlers. Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams prepared me for what actually emerged on screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed, generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance…. I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes. I distinctly heard the triumphal opening chords of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' (the 2001 theme) in my mind. I couldn't eat, and that night 'my' insects swarmed behind my eyelids as I tried to sleep."

My prize would be for a visually appealing world in which the life-forms have a visible, and preferably 3-D, morphology on the computer screen. They must evolve adaptations not just to 'inanimate' factors like the weather (which would produce essentially predictable, not emergent evolution) but to other evolving life forms (which is a recipe for emergent properties).

Richard Dawkins

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

(Complete listing)

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Octopus abuse! | Main | I'm #23? »

Evolution of vertebrate eyes

Category: DevelopmentEvolutionScience
Posted on: December 21, 2007 1:14 PM, by PZ Myers

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

A while back, I summarized a review of the evolution of eyes across the whole of the metazoa — it doesn't matter whether we're looking at flies or jellyfish or salmon or shrimp, when you get right down to the biochemistry and cell biology of photoreception, the common ancestry of the visual system is apparent. Vision evolved in the pre-Cambrian, and we have all inherited the same basic machinery — since then, we've mainly been elaborating, refining, and randomly varying the structures that add functionality to the eye.

Now there's a new and wonderfully comprehensive review of the evolution of eyes in one specific lineage, the vertebrates. The message is that, once again, all the heavy lifting, the evolution of a muscled eyeball with a lens and retinal circuitry, was accomplished early, between 550 and 500 million years ago. Most of what biology has been doing since is tweaking — significant tweaking, I'm sure, but the differences between a lamprey eye and our eyes are in the details, not the overall structure.

From those early pre-Cambrian days on, there have been two (well, three, but let's not get into that right now) basic kinds of photoreceptor: ciliary and rhabdomeric. The differences between the two are in cellular organization—rhabdomeric receptors have an apical elaboration of the cell membrane, while ciliary receptors modify a protrusion called the cilium to do the same thing—and in the cellular pathway they use to trigger changes in current flow across the membrane. Different lineages have appropriated these two kinds of photoreceptors in different ways. We vertebrates use ciliary photoreceptors in the image-forming part of our eyes; we have rhabdomeric receptors, too, but they're used in a more general way to sense light and dark, and play a role in circadian rhythms. Most invertebrates instead use rhabdomeric receptors for vision — the eye of the octopus, for instance, which superficially resembles ours, contains rhabdomeric photoreceptors instead of the ciliary rods and cones of our eyes. These ciliary receptors are found in all chordates, even in cephalochordates which lack true eyes, but do have simple light sensors.

vert_receptors.jpg
(click for larger image)

The structure of ciliary photoreceptors at various stages of chordate/vertebrate evolution. The middle row shows schematic diagrams of the entire photoreceptor; the top and bottom rows show electron micrographs of the outer segment and the synaptic terminal, respectively. Note the gradual transition towards a highly organized laminar structure in the outer segment and the appearance of ribbons in the synaptic terminal.

The proteins used in vertebrate photoreceptors are also ancient. The oldest distinction, between the proteins and pathways of rhabdomeric and ciliary receptors, can be traced back to pre-Cambrian animal ancestors, but later refinements, such as the evolution of separate rod and cone photoreceptors, occurred within the vertebrate line. The data suggest that cone opsins (the ones used for color vision) evolved and diversified first, and that the rods evolved later, as a specialized and novel kind of photoreceptor with greater sensitivity and dynamic range. The idea that black-and-white vision had to come first is a cultural artifact; the history of televisions does not repeat the history of vision. Lampreys are an interesting transitional form. They have a rod opsin, but it's intermediate in structure between the basal cone opsin and gnathostome rod opsin, and it's also found in receptors with a cone-like morphology.

vert_pigments.jpg
(click for larger image)

The evolution of vertebrate opsins. On the left of the main figure is a dendrogram of the major opsin classes that are relevant to the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Before the separation of protostomes and deuterostomes, the primordial opsin had already diverged into three main classes: rhabdomeric opsins, which are characteristic of protostome rhabdomeric photoreceptors (see upper photoreceptor schematic) but are also found in melanopsin- containing vertebrate retinal ganglion cells; 'photoisomerase' opsins, such as retinal G-protein-coupled receptor (RGR) opsin and peropsin, which may in fact be G-protein-coupled receptors; and ciliary opsins (see lower photoreceptor schematic), which are characteristic of those photoreceptors in which the pigment-containing region is an expansion of the membrane of a cilium. Vertebrate retinal opsins are represented by the lowermost six rows in the diagram. The primordial retinal opsin of vertebrates diverged into long-wavelength sensitive (LWS) and short-wavelength-sensitive (SWS) branches, and then the latter split into several sub-groups: SWS1, SWS2 and Rh2/RhB, each of which is associated with cone-like photoreceptors. The Rh1 pigment of jawed vertebrates (bottom line) seems to represent the most recent development among these classes, and is expressed in vertebrate rod photoreceptors. A separate class of rod, the 'green rod' of non-mammalian vertebrates, uses the SWS2 pigment that is also present in the blue-sensitive cones of these species. On the right of the main figure are presumed classes of G-protein coupling mechanism, residues at four important locations (in the numbering system for bovine rhodopsin; blue and green shading highlights residue similarity; pink shading highlights a chloride-binding site), and the regional expression of the opsins in vertebrate tissues. AC, amacrine cell; GC, ganglion cell; HC, horizontal cell; RPE, retinal pigment epithelium; VA, vertebrate ancient.

An eye, to us, is much more than a patch of light sensitive cells, so while it's clear the molecular and cellular basis of photoreception is an old, old capability, there's the matter of building the elaborate light collecting structure of the eye, which is relatively more recent. How do vertebrates build an optical instrument of such sophistication? We can get the answer from development, and it also suggests an evolutionary explanation.

The diagram below summarizes the steps in vertebrate eye development, and do check out the flash animation of eye development.

vert_eye_cup.jpg
(click for larger image)

Development of the vertebrate eye cup. a | The neural plate is the starting point for the development of the vertebrate eye cup. b | The neural plate folds upwards and inwards. c | The optic grooves evaginate. d | The lips of the neural folds approach each other and the optic vesicles bulge outwards. e | After the lips have sealed the neural tube is pinched off. At this stage the forebrain grows upwards and the optic vesicles continue to balloon outwards: they contact the surface ectoderm and induce the lens placode. f | The optic vesicle now invaginates, so that the future retina is apposed to the future retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), and the ventricular space that was between them disappears. Developing retinal ganglion cells send axons out across the retinal surface. The surface ectoderm at the lens placode begins to form the lens pit. This section is midline in the right eye, through the choroid fissure, so only the upper region of the retina and the RPE are visible. g | The eye cup grows circumferentially, eventually sealing over the choroidal fissure and enclosing the axons of the optic nerve (as well as the hyaloid/ retinal vessels; not shown). The ectodermal tissue continues to differentiate and eventually forms the lens. (There is an excellent animation of this illustration online.)

Vertebrate eyes are outpocketings of the brain. The neural tube bulges out two lateral bubbles of tissue that have the potential for light sensitivity; in the ancestral metazoan, this is probably all they had, paired patches of ciliary photoreceptors in the brain. Initially, light collection wouldn't have been a problem in a small, transparent organism, but as they grew larger and more opaque, there would have been selection for animals that had windows of transparency to allow light in to strike the photoreceptors. These could have been localized to just adjacent to the eyes by the acquisition of inductive interactions between the photoreceptive patch of the brain and the overlying epidermis; the eye spot instructs the skin over it to maintain transparency. Thickening of this transparent region into a lens would have gradually improved the image-forming capability of the patch, leading to the formation of the true vertebrate eye. The extended and folded over region of the brain would become the retina, retaining its connection to the rest of the brain through a thin stalk, the optic nerve.

This developmental process of progressive improvements in the structure of the eye reflects the evolutionary history of the eye cup as well. Each step in the process gradually adds more visual functionality, and exactly parallels the sequence of selective events hypothesized by Charles Darwin; every step adds a little more to the image-forming ability of the eye. The emerging functionality of the sequence is also apparent in the development of the lamprey, which carries it out with remarkable slowness. The larva of the lamprey, the ammocoete, is essentially blind, with light-sensitive cells that can do little more than discriminate between night and day. Over the course of about 5 years, it carries out the slow, steady construction of an eyeball with a differentiated retina, a lens, ocular muscles, etc., and then erupts onto the surface of the adult head as a recognizably full-featured vertebrate eye.

The structure of that retina is also important. It is more than just an array of photoreceptors—it's a complex image processing engine, with an array of repeating elements in addition to the photoreceptors that manipulates visual information before passing it on to the brain. Photoreceptors feed into bipolar cells that connect to ganglion cells, which are the actual neurons that send an axon back into the optic nerve. In addition, there are horizontal and amacrine cells that connect laterally, between the converging columns of receptor-bipolars-ganglion cells. The whole is a very precisely layered structure that again develops gradually.

The order of development of the retinal circuitry has some suggestive features that imply an evolutionary sequence.

vert_retina.jpg
(click for larger image)

The development of retinal neurons and circuitry. a | The cell cycle in the vertebrate retina. The soma of a replicating cell migrates between the outer (ventricular) surface, where mitosis (M) occurs, and the inner (vitread) surface. b | The sequential birth of cell classes in the vertebrate retina, with timings indicated for the ferret in both post-natal weeks and caecal time (that is, the time relative to eye opening), which is probably a better comparator for other species. c-e | The maturation of neural connectivity in the retina (again, timings are for the ferret). c | Initially photoreceptors (which exhibit few adult morphological characteristics) send transient processes to the inner plexiform layer (IPL), where they make synaptic contacts with the two sub-laminae. d | Subsequently these processes retract, and developing bipolar cells insert themselves into the pathway between the photoreceptors and the inner nuclear layer (INL). e | At a later stage, the rod and cone photoreceptors develop inner segments (IS) and outer segments (OS). A, amacrine cell; B, bipolar cell; C, cone photoreceptor cell; G, ganglion cell; H, horizontal cell; ILM, inner limiting membrane; OLM, outer limiting membrane; OPL, outer plexiform layer; R, rod photoreceptor cell.

In short, the ganglion cells, which connect to the brain, and the horizontal and amacrine cells, which form cross-connections within the retina, are the first cells to develop. The photoreceptors form next, but remember, the photoreceptors connect to the deeper elements of the retina through the bipolar cells…and the bipolar cells form last. This suggests that the bipolar cells are a relatively recent addition. Bipolar cells share morphological and gene expression similarities to the photoreceptors, which in turn suggests that they are modified photoreceptors themselves.

"Relatively recent addition," though, is still old. Lampreys have the same retinal circuitry and exhibit the same late-in-development addition of the bipolar cells, which means that the layered retina had to have evolved before the lamprey line split from the line that led to us — and that occurred about 500 million years ago.

This makes lampreys important as markers of an upper bound of the period of evolution of vertebrate image forming eyes. They've got all the major morphological characters of our eyes (and many deep differences as well—let's not get the impression that eye evolution stopped with the lamprey), and that means these features were assembled over 500 million years ago. What we need to do is look at species representing earlier splits from the vertebrate lineage to try and establish a lower bound…and interest focuses on the hagfish. What kind of eyes do hagfish have?

Hagfish turn out to have very poorly developed eyes that don't seem capable of forming an image at all. They are small conical masses buried beneath the skin, and they do not form a lens, they do not have extraocular muscles, they are barely a step up from a photosensitive eye patch. The retina has ganglion and photoreceptor cells, but no amacrine or bipolar cells. It's a very primitive structure.

Now comes the difficult part, though: interpretation. We can say the upper bound of the period of evolution of the eye is 500 million years ago, and where the lower bound falls depends very much on the phylogeny of hagfish, illustrated below.

vert_eye_philo.jpg
(click for larger image)

The origin of vertebrates. The evolution of jawed vertebrates is illustrated against an approximate time-scale of millions of years ago (Mya). The taxa considered in this Review are indicated with an asterisk and are accompanied by schematics and diagrams of the 'eye' region. The earliest chordates, represented by extant cephalochordates and tunicates, are thought to have appeared around 550 Mya. Jawless craniates (agnathans) were present in the early Cambrian, by 525 Mya, and a time of 530 Mya has been indicated for their presumed first appearance. There is considerable controversy as to whether myxiniformes (solely represented by extant hagfish) diverged before or after the separation of lampreys from jawed vertebrates (shown as dashed black and grey lines). Numerous lines of jawless fish evolved between 500 and 430 Mya ago, although none have survived to the present day. The first jawed vertebrate arose around 430 Mya, and this line is represented today by cartilagenous fish, bony fish and tetrapods. Six 'stages of interest' in vertebrate eye evolution correspond to the time intervals between the divergence of important surviving taxa. This diagram does not include the evolutionary changes that have occurred in the last 400 million years. The presented timeline is based primarily on evidence from the fossil record.

(The mermaid to represent all gnathostomes, including fishes and tetrapods, is a cute touch, but let me assure you that this paper does not endorse the existence of mermaids or other mythical chimeras.)

One hypothesis for the evolution of hagfish is that they are a branch of the chordate lineage that split off approximately 530 million years ago, and are representative of the organization of the basal proto-vertebrate. That would tell us the the eye evolved after that branch point, placing all the major innovations in the morphology of the eye between 530 and 500 million years ago, within populations of lamprey-like ancestors. This is the hypothesis that Lamb and others prefer.

The alternative hypothesis is that hagfish aren't representative at all; they are degenerate forms that split from the lamprey lineage at some time after 500 million years ago. Their eyes are actually neotenous larval lamprey eyes, and don't tell us anything about the primitive state. What this would imply is that the lower bound of this window in time when the eye evolved is unknown; it could be pushed back to 550 million years ago, when the tunicate line split off…but they may have secondarily lost their eyes, too, which leaves that lower bound possibly dangling back a few more tens of millions of years.

The authors do make an argument that hagfish are plesiomorphic craniates that I won't get into. No matter which way the matter is settled, though, hagfish remain an important and interesting group to study in order to decipher the evolution of the eye, and working out the details of the differences between hagfish and lampreys are going to be central to understanding how our eyes arose.

Which brings me to mention two things I very much liked about this review: one is that it exemplifies good science, in that it makes clear, detailed predictions and proposes tests to evaluate those hypotheses. As listed below, these revolve around examining the relationships of tunicates, hagfish, and lampreys, and in identifying further shared and derived properties of the lamprey eye with other vertebrate eyes. This is the kind of specific checklist of ideas from which research scientists work.

Predictions and tests of our hypotheses of vertebrate eye evolution

Prediction 1: the phototransduction cascade components of tunicate ocelli should be homologous with those of hagfish and lamprey photoreceptors.

  • Identify the G protein of Ciona intestinalis photoreceptors and compare it with those of hagfish, lampreys and jawed vertebrates.
  • Determine whether other homologous cascade components (for example, phosphodiesterase and cyclic-nucleotide- gated channels) are present in tunicate photoreceptors.
  • Determine the genomic organization of these cascade components and compare it with that of jawed vertebrates.

Prediction 2: at an early stage of eye evolution there was synaptic contact from ciliary photoreceptors onto rhabdomeric photoreceptors.

  • Examine whether synaptic contacts occur between ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptors in extant protochordates, such as Amphioxus and C. intestinalis.
  • Examine whether microvillar opsin-containing membranes are retained in the retinal projection neurons (ganglion cells) of any extant organism.

Prediction 3: hagfish photoreceptors should exhibit close homology to cones.

  • Identify the ciliary opsin (or opsins) of hagfish and determine its (or their) phylogenetic relationship to other ciliary opsins.
  • Identify the principal phototransduction proteins (the G protein, the phosphodiesterase and the cyclic-nucleotide-gated channels) in hagfish, and determine their phylogenetic relationship to vertebrate cone and rod isoforms.
  • Measure the electrical light responses and light adaptation of hagfish photoreceptors, and compare these with cone and rod responses.

Prediction 4: the hagfish retina should not contain bipolar cells, and its photoreceptors should synapse directly onto the projection neurons (ganglion cells).

  • Use retrograde labelling of hagfish ganglion cells to examine their synaptic inputs.
  • Use Golgi labelling of hagfish retina to investigate the connectivity of different cell classes.
  • Examine the synaptic contacts between cell classes at the ultrastructural level.

Prediction 5: if hagfish are monophyletic with lampreys, then they might represent a form with arrested development, rather than a degenerate form.

  • Examine the phylogenetic relationship between cyclostome genes; in particular, examine the relationship between the opsin genes to estimate the stage at which hagfish diverged.

Prediction 6: lampreys ought not to possess true rods.

  • Further characterize the photoreceptors of other extant species of lamprey to ascertain whether the morphological and electrophysiological features of true rods are present.
  • Further characterize the opsins of lampreys, to ascertain whether the RhA/Rh1 pigment can be considered equivalent to a rhodopsin.

Prediction 7: lampreys should not possess rod bipolar cells.

  • Carry out an immunohistochemical characterization of bipolar cell classes in the lamprey retina.
  • Carry out an electrophysiological characterization of lamprey bipolar cells.

Prediction 8: if vertebrate bipolar cells are descended from photoreceptors they will share numerous molecular components or have very close homologues.

  • Compare the molecular components of cone and rod bipolar cells with those of cones and rods.

And another excellent feature of this paper is that it provides a detailed, step-by-step sequence for the evolution of the vertebrate eye. This isn't just a vague hypothesis, or a guess at unnamed, unspecified forces intervening at poorly understood points, but a description of known changes at the level of molecules, cells, morphology, and taxa. Here it is, a summary of eye evolution over 150 million years:

Proposed sequence of events involved in the evolution of the vertebrate eye

Stage 1: bilateral ancestor (>580 million years ago (Mya))

  • Animals with bilateral symmetry exist.
  • Numerous families of genes exist.
  • A range of G-protein-coupled signalling cascades exist.
  • A primordial opsin has evolved into three major classes: rhabdomeric opsins, photoisomerase-like opsins and ciliary opsins.
  • A rhabdomeric-type photoreceptor has evolved, using a Gq-based signalling cascade with a rhabdomeric opsin.
  • A ciliary-type photoreceptor has evolved, using a variant opsin (the stem ciliary opsin) that probably coupled to a Go-based signalling cascade.

~580 Mya

  • Protostomes separate from our line (deuterostomes).

Stage 2: protochordates (580-550 Mya)

  • The ciliary photoreceptor and ciliary opsin continue to evolve, becoming similar to those in extant amphioxus and ascidian larvae.
  • A primordial RPE65-like isomerase evolves.
    These protochordates had ciliary photoreceptors with a ciliary opsin and a hyperpolarizing response, and were able to regenerate 11-cis retinal in darkness.

~550 Mya

  • Cephalochordates and tunicates separate from our line (chordates).

Stage 3: ancestral craniates (~550-530 Mya)

  • A ciliary photoreceptor evolves that has well organized outer-segment membranes, an output synapse close to the soma and a synaptic specialization appropriate for graded signal transmission.
  • Ciliary photoreceptors make synaptic contact onto projection neurons that might have been descendants of rhabdomeric photoreceptors.
  • The eye-field region of the diencephalon bulges to form lateral 'eye vesicles'.
  • These lateral vesicles invaginate, bringing the proto-retina into apposition with the proto-retinal pigment epithelium.
  • A primordial lens placode develops, preventing pigmentation of the overlying skin.
    The resulting paired lateral photoreceptive organs would have resembled the 'eyes' of extant hagfish, lacking any image-forming apparatus and subserving non-visual functions.

~530 Mya

  • Myxiniformes (hagfish) separate from our line (vertebrates).

Stage 4: lamprey-like ancestors (~530-500 Mya)

  • Photoreceptors develop cone-like features:
    • Highly-ordered sac/disc membranes evolve.
    • Mitochondria become concentrated within the ellipsoid region of the inner segment1.
    • Coloured filter material is incorporated into the inner segment for spectral tuning.
    • Ribbon synapses evolve in the synaptic terminal.
    • Genome duplications give rise to multiple copies of the phototransduction genes.
    • Cell classes diverge to give five separate cone-like photoreceptors, each with its own ciliary opsin and with isoforms of transduction proteins.
  • Retinal computing power increases:
    • Cone bipolar cells evolve, either from proto-neurons or from photoreceptors.
    • The bipolar cells insert into the pathway from photoreceptors to ganglion cells, through the retraction of photoreceptor processes and the incorporation of new contacts.
    • Bi-plexiform ganglion cells develop.
    • A highly organized three-layered neuronal structure with two intervening plexiform layers develops.
  • Ganglion-cell axons project to the thalamus.
  • The optics evolve (the lens, accommodation and eye movement):
    • The lens placode invaginates and develops to form a lens.
    • The iris develops and a degree of pupillary constriction becomes possible.
    • Innervated extra-ocular muscles evolve.
    The resulting eye and visual system would have resembled that in extant lampreys and would have provided spatial vision at photopic intensities and over a broad wavelength range.

~500 Mya

  • Petromyzoniformes (lampreys) separate from our line.

Stage 5: jawless fish (~500-430 Mya)

  • Myelin evolves and is incorporated throughout the nervous system.
  • Rod photoreceptors evolve:
    • Rhodopsin evolves from cone opsin.
    • Rod isoforms of most transduction cascade proteins arise.
    • Free-floating discs pinch off within the plasma membrane.
  • Rod bipolar cells evolve, possibly from rod photoreceptors.
  • The scotopic rod pathway evolves, with a new subset of amacrine cells (AII) providing input into the pre-existing cone pathway.
  • A highly contractile iris evolves that can adjust light levels.
  • Intrinsic eye muscles develop that permit accommodation of the lens.
    This eye possessed a duplex retina that contained both rods and cones, together with retinal wiring that closely resembled that of jawed vertebrates, with colour-coded photopic pathways and a dedicated scotopic pathway; it was probably similar to that found in many extant fish.

~430 Mya

  • The last jawless fish separate from our own line (gnathostomes).

Stage 6: gnathostomes (<430 Mya).

  • In the case of tetrapods:
    • The lens develops an elliptical shape to compensate for the added refractive power that is provided by the cornea in air.
    • The dermal component of the split cornea is lost and the eyelids evolve.
    • Certain opsin classes are lost, for example, SWS2 and Rh2 in mammals, under extended nocturnal conditions.

That's a beautiful illustration of the power of theory: it creates a framework of observations in which to work, and is going to help us place new observations and experiments (and there will always be new discoveries) in a context. I'll be filing this away and using is a reference in further reading about eye evolution.


Lamb TD, Collin SP, Pugh EN Jr. (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nat Rev Neurosci 8(12):960-76.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

#1

...now what is the probability of all that happening?

;P

Posted by: me | December 21, 2007 1:23 PM

#2

The probability is 1 -- it already happened :P

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | December 21, 2007 1:29 PM

#3

Yeah, but couldn't it all just be chance that eyes and everything else appears to be evolved? I mean, the tree of vertebrate life could just be a random happenstance, or the designer's skills could somehow be exactly the same as evolution's is.

Well, that is basically the argument from "the other side."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 1:35 PM

#4

Wow. . . just. . . wow.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 21, 2007 1:38 PM

#5

What I wanna know is when did the Abrahamic eye, which allows one to see the obvious hand of God in everything, develop snd split off from the eye of the rest of humanity, which variously sees gods, spirits, demons, monsters, chimeras, or nothing at all?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2007 1:46 PM

#6

NAAAAAHHH,
What's more likely? All that complicated "evolving" stuff or someone with really big thoughts thinking, I think I'll make eyes? I mean sheesh, you scientists.

Posted by: remy | December 21, 2007 1:47 PM

#7

Must have been about the time we evolved a bicameral mind. Or when nomads discovered psilocybin.

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 21, 2007 1:49 PM

#8

The image for the typical jawed vertebrate - are my eyes fooling me, or is that a merman?

Posted by: TomS | December 21, 2007 1:50 PM

#9

PZ said: "The mermaid to represent all gnathostomes, including fishes and tetrapods, is a cute touch, but let me assure you that this paper does not endorse the existence of mermaids or other mythical chimeras."

Yet another example of the evil Darwinist plot to remove "alternative" theories from science.

I love these types of posts. They are just the right length and level of language to digest.

Posted by: Tony Popple | December 21, 2007 1:51 PM

#10

Come on, folks, don't you realize that Behe and Dembski et al. have proved (proved, I say, proved!) that the eye would be impossible unless goddidit?

Posted by: Tom | December 21, 2007 2:04 PM

#11

Waitaminute...why are there still hagfish?

Posted by: Sven DimIlo | December 21, 2007 2:07 PM

#12

Tom said "Come on, folks, don't you realize that Behe and Dembski et al. have proved (proved, I say, proved!) that the eye would be impossible unless goddidit?"

So, the question isn't if god did it. Rather, how drunk was he at the time?

Posted by: Tony Popple | December 21, 2007 2:27 PM

#13

We know from the bible that God created man in his own image. Therefore the eye is a divine structure. The real question is, why would God go through so much trouble to design a less complicated and more "primitive" eye in hagfish and lamprey?

It just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: tintenfisch | December 21, 2007 2:28 PM

#14

Brownian, OM said: "What I wanna know is when did the Abrahamic eye, which allows one to see the obvious hand of God in everything, develop snd split off from the eye of the rest of humanity, which variously sees gods, spirits, demons, monsters, chimeras, or nothing at all?"

It's more likely that the truth-seeking eye evolved from the Abrahamic (or "truth"-seeing eye) during the scientific revolution, and has continued to be refined since. Unfortunately, natural selection was subverted by politics, so the more evolved form has yet to establish itself in the majority of Sapiens.

Posted by: RJM | December 21, 2007 3:03 PM

#15

I have a prediction about how the creationists will interpret this.

Because the major morphological features of the vertebrate eye have an origin sometime before 500 million years ago, what they will see is "Poof! The eye appeared fully formed in the Cambrian!" and they will call it evidence of a designer. They will ignore the multiple steps documented here, and the fact that vertebrate eyes have diverged in different directions and with different refinements since.

Anyone want to take the bet?

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 21, 2007 3:10 PM

#16

So do the jellyfish eyes share a common ancestry with those discussed in detail here?

Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig | December 21, 2007 3:13 PM

#17

Except that they'll also demand to see every step in the evolution of each eye that has evolved. You know, to be fair, since science is utterly incapable of extrapolation or of inference when any step is missing.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 3:15 PM

#18
since science is utterly incapable of extrapolation or of inference when any step is missing.

I forgot to add that it changes again when every step is missing, as with ID. Then it becomes science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 3:19 PM

#19

OMG!!

This looks to be a serious setback for evolution

1st figure above, bottom row, second from right EM image:

The lamprey retina is clearly giving us the one-fingered salute!!!

Only an intelligent designer could have done that. A crafty intelligent designer, one with a sense of humor, but an intelligent designer nonetheless.

Posted by: me | December 21, 2007 3:19 PM

#20

No, I like the bicameral mind hypothesis.

Explains Dubya's decisions perfectly.

I suppose it means that, in atheists, the unassailable god-part of the brain is stuck in endless filibustering, leaving the bureaucratic man-part to reason its way through life.

Sounds like Canadian politics, but less boring.

Ow! My mind just had a vote of non-confidence.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2007 3:19 PM

#21

Evolution of mousetrap:

http://community.livejournal.com/lolscience/15129.html

[btw, Behe dolt, a designed mousetrap is configured very differently from an evolved one. How can you be so stoopid?]

Question

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 3:37 PM

#22

This is way cool.

I was on the phone with a friend yesterday. She knows I'm an atheist, and she was going on about something. I mentioned what I thought, how amazingly complex we are and how neat it is that evolution developed us of all things, and she just went off about going to church and believing and how that doesn't make her a bad person blah blah blah. It's amazing how touchy people get. Even saying that shit like this is amazing becomes somehow an attack, because it doesn't explicitly acknowledge "something bigger" or "meaning."

Who cares? this shit's cool in and of itself.

Posted by: MAJeff | December 21, 2007 3:42 PM

#23

...this paper does not endorse the existence of mermaids...

Blasphemy! I will not suffer such an attack on my faith.

C'mon man! You believe in pirates and octopuses, how can you stop short of the mermen! Triton will get you with his big pointy trident of doom.

Posted by: Schmeer | December 21, 2007 3:56 PM

#24

Brownian OM wrote (#20): "I like the bicameral mind hypothesis."

That actually makes sense: Creationists still hear voices in their heads, and evolutionists have evolved beyond that.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | December 21, 2007 4:03 PM

#25

Looks like I either mislinked, or something's wrong with the system. Here's the "Question" link that didn't make it in my post above:

http://community.livejournal.com/lolscience/14945.html

Glen D

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 4:04 PM

#27
In order for your evolutionary view to prevail, you must somehow demonstrate that evolution has the power vested in it by you and you must demonstrate that random, non-directed processes such as mutation have the power to organize and assemble highly integrated systems in which means are adapted to ends.

Since there's no evidence of any direction, the fact that that's indeed how it happened is obviously evidence that non-directed rocesses such as mutation have the power.

But then again, Christianity was a pretty good story too, and it's lasted over 2000 years. I guess truthfulness is not a necessary requirement for longevity in the fairy tale business.

Hinduism's even better (and older) than your silly fairy tail.

Plus, it involves fewer unicorns, which are, quite plainly, mythical.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2007 4:16 PM

#28

hmmmmm this "gypsy biker" guy sounds reeeeeal familiar...it was a thread just a day or two ago...in fact I think he actually used the eye example all by hisself...
aaaa hell I can't find it.
He's a definite sockpuppet though.

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 21, 2007 4:17 PM

#29

I wrote the following parody of the IDiots, which nevertheless is about the same as the nonsense that gypsybiker later spouts:

Yeah, but couldn't it all just be chance that eyes and everything else appears to be evolved? I mean, the tree of vertebrate life could just be a random happenstance, or the designer's skills could somehow be exactly the same as evolution's is.

Well, that is basically the argument from "the other side."

Congrats, gypsybiker, you basically managed to make the same stupid argument that I brought up, showing that you neither know science nor how to read competently.

Why can't any of you anti-evolutionist dolts understand the importance of prediction in science? The thing is, tard, that the predictions of non-teleological evolution have been fulfilled, and you morons neither understand the importance of that, nor do you have any kind of theory or hypothesis that explains what evolutionary theory explains.

Now if you still don't understand, bug off and take some high school courses to replace the idiocy filling your brain with some actual knowledge of science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 21, 2007 4:17 PM

#30

uh...wrong thread? D'oh!

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 21, 2007 4:19 PM

#31

The mermaid to represent all gnathostomes, including fishes and tetrapods, is a cute touch....

Consider it a "representative generic morphology". You vertebrates are such a minor group, no one can be bothered keeping all your trivial anatomical variants straight!

Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 21, 2007 4:20 PM

#32

The "gypsybiker" twit is the banned and spectacularly obnoxious Charlie Wagner. I clean up his messes as quickly as I encounter them.

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 21, 2007 4:28 PM

#33

phew! I mean, I know I need sleep real bad (freakin lab reports!!!!), but that kind of scared me for a second.
Wagner, of course...reeeeeeally reeeeeally familiar.

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 21, 2007 4:30 PM

#34

How come so many of the religious posters (who are only concerned with the truth) need to set up so many sock-puppets to hide who they are?

If you believe what you say, then say it and use your own name or, at the very least, a consistent alias. C'mon now, St. Sebastian took a hundred arrows for his faith, surely you can post on a blog without resorting to a coward's tactics in defence of yours.

Whatsa matter? Afraid that God doesn't really have your back?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2007 4:34 PM

#35

Beautiful synopsis of the paper, PZ. It was this very thing--the evo-devo majesty of the eye that inspired me to become a research biologist lo these many years ago. Reading your lovely review today transported me back to the moment at which I realized that to make a career of studying such elegant intricacies would be the most phenomenal, fulfilling vocation on earth.

I feel really sorry for the millions of stunted, blinded sheeple who cannot--WILL not appreciate how beautiful the natural world is all on its own--who can only marvel vaguely about what a wonderful 'designer' must have dunnit.

In what way does realizing the full extent of these magnificent developmental/genetic refinements over hundreds of millions of years NOT kick 'godditit''s ass??

Posted by: jbp | December 21, 2007 4:59 PM

#36

All this evidence indicating variations on a theme gradually leading to more complex and generally better functioning eyes just screams out design, doesn't it? ;)

Posted by: Matt | December 21, 2007 5:00 PM

#37

I'd love to see the same sort of thing applied to the protostomes and showing the basal aspects of the opsins and how they support convergent evolution and compare-and-contrast, but even more, I'd like to see a similar assessment go back further to the origins of opsins and such, and how photopigments are related in euglena phototaxis, photosensitivity and photosynthesis in much earlier or disparate organisms. The history of opsins and pax6 seem like a great thing to take as far back as we can to the origins... clearly, trilobites had rather sophisticated lens structures so they presumably had similarly sophisticated retinal and neural mechanisms as well. I know a lot of animals have extraocular photoreceptors and plants and certainly eukaryotes and possibly prokaryotes have phototaxis of various sorts, and knowing how those are interrelated would be great... I've heard opsins are believed to have an origin in some sort of unicellular photosynthesis.

On a related note, people who know this stuff should probably make some effort to fix the stupidities at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye -- I hoped mentioning the stupidity of saying a "unicellular invertebrate euglena" has an "eyepatch of photosensitive cells" in the talk page would prompt someone who knows euglena to fix things properly, but so far, it's festered in stupidity for a year or so. Of course, I predict that merely mentioning that page here will lead to it becoming a skirmish in rabid creation/evolution madness, but it's pretty awful mess already... even in sections where I agree with the points, the details about cephalopod and stomatopod eyes are a bit muddled or poorly phrased.

Posted by: Mark (Monty) Montague | December 21, 2007 5:14 PM

#38

@36 my eyes suck

I'd be long dead if I was a hunter gatherer type

Posted by: me | December 21, 2007 5:17 PM

#39

@#38, My husband the optometrist's pet (albeit wild-assed) theory is that myopes stayed in the gene pool because of their value as cave painters and fine motor skill workers. Diligent labor of this sort bought them a share of the hunted and the gathered.

However, this would only be a workable system if the myope in question had sufficient intelligence to perform these tasks. Stupid myopes would presumably not make the cut. Hence my husband's (who, btw, is a raging myope himself) totally unscientific addendum to this theory is a positive correlation between myopia and intelligence.

Posted by: jbp | December 21, 2007 5:47 PM

#40
Because the major morphological features of the vertebrate eye have an origin sometime before 500 million years ago, what they will see is "Poof! The eye appeared fully formed in the Cambrian!"

Anyone want to take the bet?

well, PZ, I'm sure they will quotemine this part of your original post:

Most of what biology has been doing since is tweaking

and say:

"See, even evilutionists say it's all just microevolution - I mean, it's still just an eye!"

taking bets on what the stupid and dishonest will do isn't entertainment, it's so predictable it's boring.

you'd have to lay huge odds to make that bet even remotely interesting.

say, 20 to 1, maybe?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2007 5:48 PM

#41

PZ: "The data suggest that cone opsins (the ones used for color vision) evolved and diversified first, and that the rods evolved later, ... The idea that black-and-white vision had to come first is a cultural artifact; the history of televisions does not repeat the history of vision. "

This cannot be correct: to "see" in color requires two or more sets of photoreceptors sensitive to different wavelengths. Presumably one evolved first before a duplication event produced a second pigment that could evolve a different sensitivity. Until you have more than one, it's a black-and-white world.

Posted by: Divalent | December 21, 2007 6:02 PM

#42

The "gypsybiker" twit is the banned and spectacularly obnoxious Charlie Wagner. I clean up his messes as quickly as I encounter them.

PZ, I think he has a crush with his "For your eyes only" notes.

Posted by: MAJeff | December 21, 2007 6:15 PM

#43
One hypothesis for the evolution of hagfish is that they are a branch of the chordate lineage that split off approximately 530 million years ago, and are representative of the organization of the basal proto-vertebrate. That would tell us the the eye evolved after that branch point, placing all the major innovations in the morphology of the eye between 530 and 500 million years ago, within populations of lamprey-like ancestors.

At face value, yes, but don't all hagfish live rather deep in the sea, where eyes aren't much good? In other words, are hagfish from a purely ecological perspective expected to have vertebrate eyes? If not, their eye patches cannot be taken as evidence of anything other than their (present) habitat.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 21, 2007 6:19 PM

#44

cue Sheena Easton and the naked, gun-toting silhouetted Bond-girls...

Posted by: jbp | December 21, 2007 6:19 PM

#45

Ah, but the point is that the duplication and divergence of cone opsins came first, and the key distinction about cone opsins is that they have more wavelength specificity and don't saturate at higher levels of illumination. It's true that with one opsin, you can't have color vision, but color vision was easy to acquire.

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 21, 2007 6:25 PM

#46
"See, even evilutionists say it's all just microevolution - I mean, it's still just an eye!"

Familiarize yourself with the caecilian tentacle. The muscles that move it are slightly misplaced eye-moving muscles, the gland that lubricates it is the slightly misplaced Harderian gland that lubricates the eyeball in other land-living vertebrates... yet it's an appendage that's used for some kind of smelling.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 21, 2007 6:25 PM

#47

jbp, where did you get that association...?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 21, 2007 6:27 PM

#48

David,

I'll reprise PZ's earlier post as an explanation (also for my immediate previous post):

The "gypsybiker" twit is the banned and spectacularly obnoxious Charlie Wagner. I clean up his messes as quickly as I encounter them.

he was here again insisting that his posts were really for PZ's eyes. He's got an admirer

Posted by: MAJeff | December 21, 2007 6:36 PM

#49

yet it's an appendage that's used for some kind of smelling.

yeah, yeah, so you can smell with your eye(stalk).

still just an eye.

:P

seriously, I can't lose this argument, so long as i keep saying:

"it's still just an eye"

which, of course, is the point.

you simply can't argue with the utterly inane.

which is also why I would want huge odds in my favor before I would consider taking up PZ on his bet.


Posted by: ichthyic | December 21, 2007 7:11 PM

#50

i have to say that it's a sad testament to the current day that you felt you had to include the disclaimer about the mermaid...

otherwise, I love this sort of post. I feel so much better after learning something new (to me) like this. makes my whole day. thanks very much.

Posted by: peter | December 21, 2007 7:12 PM

#51

but don't all hagfish live rather deep in the sea

not all, no. Moreover, I'm not conversant with hagfish paleontology, but I'd still bet that the fossil record would show they haven't always been most prominent in the deep benthic zone, either.

as a side note, even the common hagfish is under tremendous fishing pressure at the moment, and the feds are actually considering stricter fishing regulations on it.

http://www.fish-news.com/cfn/editorial/archive/CFN_6_07_archive.html

ever seen a hagfish in action? they are perhaps the most prolific "slime factories" on the planet. just one can turn a 5 gallon bucket into a solid mass of slime in just a few minutes. Don't get me started on some of their other disgusting habits. It's definetly one of those: "So disgusting, it's fascinating" type of critters.

It's hard to imagine there is a big fishery for it, except in the context of the fact that so many other fisheries have been so heavily overfished over the last few decades.


Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2007 7:21 PM

#52

... In fact, it seems that the market for hagfish is related to the Asian trade in "aphrodisiacs".

(pardon the reference to fox news):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285079,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience

someday, I've got to put together a list of all things that are typically considered "aphrodisiacs" in the more "wooish" parts of Asian culture.

gotta be in the thousands, at least.


Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2007 7:25 PM

#53

Now, now, we all know the eye is far too complex to have evolved by any other means than through the hand of god. Even Charles Darwin said so

http://darwin.gruts.com/misc/faq/eye-complexity/

Posted by: Bride of Shrek, FCD | December 21, 2007 7:34 PM

#54

#53...I was surprised to see a hagfish tank at an aquarium in Bangkok a couple months ago. No slime at all, though the placard mentioned their slime-producing talents. What's going on there?

Posted by: ngong | December 21, 2007 8:21 PM

#55

hagfish only produce the proteins that cause massive "slimation" when they are stressed.

it's an anti-predatory response.

Posted by: Ichhtyic | December 21, 2007 8:26 PM

#56

Very interesting. That sounds exactly like the kind of book/article I'd enjoy reading.

I would have never guessed the cones evolved before rods.

I also wonder - The stages of retinal cell development - is that information theoretical? If born out in an observational study, how'd they do it?

I'm going to have to track down the original - this subject is way too interesting to just be satisfied with a blog post =D

Posted by: Field Notes | December 21, 2007 8:29 PM

#57
I was surprised to see a hagfish tank at an aquarium in Bangkok a couple months ago. No slime at all, though the placard mentioned their slime-producing talents. What's going on there?

You must not have made them angry. Ichthyic's reference is to their behavior when forcibly caught, so naturally they're pretty motivated in that situation. Lounging around their home tank, on the other hand, without a specific threat would mean not so much reason to go into self-defense mode.

By "aquarium", do you mean an educational exhibit or a tank where they were waiting to be sold? I have heard they are eaten in the Philippines, for example. But keeping them alive and well and happy in captivity for an extended period (as opposed to just to market) is very difficult, I understand.

My vert embryo class was in 2004, so this info is somewhat dated, but I haven't heard of this particular nut being cracked yet: my teacher (PZ: hi from Billie!) told us that the difficulties of raising hagfish in captivity meant that we didn't have a comprehensive account of hagfish development, and that any of us who went on to solve that particular problem would become famous pretty fast.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 21, 2007 8:34 PM

#58

@#38

Epigenetics. How about that as an explanation for myopia?

Posted by: Field Notes | December 21, 2007 8:36 PM

#59

Apparently the hagfish slime is a quite interesting substance.

From wikipedia

[quote]
It has also recently been discovered that the mucus excreted by the hagfish is unique in that it includes strong, threadlike fibres similar to spider silk. What is interesting about hagfish slime is that it is fibre-reinforced. No other slime secretion known is reinforced with fibres in the way Hagfish slime is. The fibres are about as fine as spider silk (averaging two micrometres), but can be twelve centimetres long. When the coiled fibres leave the Hagfishes' 'slime' gland, they unravel quickly to their full length without tangling. Research continues into potential uses for this or a similar synthetic gel or of the included fibres. Some possibilities include new biodegradable polymers, space-filling gels, and as a means of stopping blood flow in accident victims and surgery patients.[/quote]

Posted by: nn | December 21, 2007 9:30 PM

#60
as a means of stopping blood flow in accident victims and surgery patients

Heh--I can see it now: "Hagfish--when leeches just aren't disgusting enough."

(I know; they're opposites. Leeches anti-coagulate; apparently, hagfish coagulate.)

Seriously, nn, that's very cool.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 21, 2007 9:43 PM

#62

David (@#47), I was responding to MAJeff's comment on the troll du jour's response to PZ--to paraphrase (the troll): "Fiddle-dee-dee, it doesn't bother me when you delete my posts, dearest, because I know that you have at least had to read them to do so, and they are for your eyes only". This brought to mind the Bond movie/theme song of that name. Comically enough, your cerebral hagfish post hit the board just seconds before my throwaway pop-culture reference. Quite the non-sequitor.

I'm now highly entertained by the image of naked silhouetted Bond girls swimming gracelessly through copious clots of hagfish slime :)

Posted by: jbp | December 21, 2007 11:47 PM

#63

Oh, and Field Notes, (re: #56) The sequence of retinal development is fairly straightforward to observe with the right cell-specific markers, either in staged, fixed eyes with antibodies/RNA probes or in live embryos with GFP hooked up to some cell specific promoter. The position, as well as the morphology, of retinal cells is stereotypical and easy to interpret, and expression of cell-specific genes lets you know when the cell is specialized enough to turn these genes on, hence a 'birth order' can be elucidated reproducibly. There are a number of pretty zebrafish papers on this very topic, if you're interested.

And epigenetics? We can trot that out for just about any trait, really. There have been some studies indicating epigenetic effects on myopia, but the methodology was fairly poor in the ones I'm familiar with.

Posted by: jbp |