Talk:Evolution of the eye

message: 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 course 

message: I was searching around evolutionary related topics, and I found Cooperative_eye_hypothesis is orphaned.  I wonder if it should be referred to from here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.190.49 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Article

message: Not sure what this means: It is biologically difficult to maintain a transparent layer of cells as sizes, therefore the thicknesses gradually increased. Graft 07:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither am I. The "as sizes" part is particularly baffling. I took the line (and much of the rest of the article's end) from Eye#Evolution of eyes. I think that the last two sections both need some significant cleanup and expansion; I couldn't find as many good sources for them as for the early stages of eye development, and the lens-formation stages are tricky to explain in layman's terms, so I gave up for the time being. -Silence 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work, by the way. Graft 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost 2 years, and no one has figured out what the "as sizes" means.  I'm removing it.  --Hordaland (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear statement

message: Completely disagree with the statement "The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic".  On the contrary, most experts would probably say that it seems to have developed at least 40 times independently.  Perhaps the writer means the vertebrate eye.
In response to the request by Silence, I put together the diagram of major stages in the evolution of the eye. However, I'm not 100% happy with one of the diagrams, specifically diagram E, which shows the development of lenses. Some of the diagrams I looked at for reference (specifically this one and this one) appear to state that lenses derived from the cellular humor inside the eye, whereas the article itself states they evolved by "splitting" from the cornea. The diagram is not totally clear in this respect, but I'd like to know which of these is the most accepted. Were the diagrams I referenced out of date? Is there a difference of opinion over how lenses evolved? Did both situations happen in parallel? I'd like to make sure the diagram is as clear and accurate as it can be. I already raised this on Silence's talk page, but decided to throw it open to wider discussion here. ~ Matticus78 12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence, and especially the one immediately following it, seemed to fail a NPOV test.  Both sentences discuss evolution vs. ID and creationism, and do not really bring new information to the question of if and how eyes developed through natural selection.  It is revealing to see people referred to as "laypeople" of evolution, as if it itself were a religion.
(this is getting pretty tangential, but this is a correct usage of "laypeople" -- see  -- and it has nothing to do with religion, except perhaps by distant etymology Montyy0 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of lenses 

message: Propose deleting the following section as an assertion without support. The reference to Miller does not appear to mention the eye or vision and appears irrelevant.
Although the eye remains a common and popular argument among laypeople, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity" because of the relatively thorough understanding of its evolutionary origins biologists now have, instead relying more on mollecular and microscopic structures such as the flagella, though recent developments have shed significant light on these structures as well.Miller, Kenneth R. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
------------ DLH 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence, and especially the one immediately following it, seemed to fail a NPOV test.  Both sentences discuss evolution vs. ID and creationism, and do not really bring new information to the question of if and how eyes developed through natural selection.  It is revealing to see people referred to as "laypeople" of evolution, as if it itself were a religion.
(this is getting pretty tangential, but this is a correct usage of "laypeople" -- see  -- and it has nothing to do with religion, except perhaps by distant etymology Montyy0 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete Undocumented Assertion

message: Perhaps you are already familiar with this or it will not be helpful, but I came across a good review article in Science last month: “Casting a Genetic Light on the Evolution of Eyes”. Perhaps those more familiar with this topic might find something useful to add to this article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review article in Science 

message: Is it worth mentioning the opposite process, where the eyes of an organism are reduced in size, covered over, or disappear completely? The mole is one example given by Darwin. I'm not sure if the opposite process is relevant to the evolution of the eye, but it is enlightening to know the process of eye formation isn't always beneficial to an organism. Richard001 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Other examples would be fish and insects that live in caves (big white eyes - I don't know the physiological difference).--naught101 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Degradation/loss of eyes

message: Despite the precision and complexity of the eye, theoretical analysis of eye evolution, developed by Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger,[5] demonstrated that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye within a reasonable period (less than a million years) simply through small mutations and natural selection.*Pro-intelligent design mathematician David Berlinski[6] criticized these findings, including a criticism that the work contained no computer simulations (something assumed by a number of scientists but disclaimed by the original authors), and criticisms of the scientific establishment in general.[7] The original authors and other scientists subsequently challenged Berlinski's criticisms.
There are a couple of things wrong with this paragraph, not the least that the part in italics is almost information-free, only inferring some dispute, or controversy.  David Berlinski has not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is misleading to infer a scientific controversy can be made.   The criticism regarding a computer simulation is directed toward errors in popular reports of their work, not the original paper.  I will replace the above with the following:
In 1802, William Paley claimed that the eye was a miracle of design.  Since then, it has often been claimed that the eye is too complex to have evolved in any reasonable time-frame.  To examine this claim empirically, Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger demonstrated that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye within a reasonable period (less than a million years) simply through small mutations and natural selection.  This paper has not raised any scientific controversy.  Pro-intelligent design writer David Berlinski[6] has criticized the findings in the public arena, questioning the basis of the calculations.  The original authors and other scientists responded by addressing Berlinski's apparent misunderstandings, including a  challenge to submit a paper of his own to a peer-reviewed journal.Trishm 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph needs context 

message: It's troubling that such a long and interesting article totally ignores the importance of photosensitivity to circadian rhythms!  (Except for the half sentence which I just added, simply to get a mention in there.)  Photosensitivity may likely have evolved first for this purpose, while it's use in vision came along later.  It's now accepted that "knowledge" of the daily light/dark cycle is the basis for all seasonal, tidal, etc. rhythms, and it is common to and necessary for (virtually) all organisms.  I don't think an article about the evolution of the eye can be anywhere near complete, when this aspect is ignored; the present article as it stands should rather be entitled Evolution of vision.  --Hordaland (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circadian rhythms 

message: Not my field, but the above sentence, I think, needs correcting - firstly, I really doubt any sort of meta-analysis has been done on what opinions are on this. Worse, the citations used to support the statement are inappropiate - three papers by the same group of authors is not conclusive on acceptance of their claims. Finally, papers exist that contradict their statement. E.g.  suggests at least two independent evolutions of the eye, despite the shared PAX6 gene. Indeed, I think this subject is deserving of a separate section in the article, to give a fuller discussion of its nuances. Probably I am an inappropiate person to write it, though. Also, lazy. --Fangz (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so false as to defy belief that it made it into the article at all. Opsins might be monophyletic (although I'm not certain that every visual system out there employs opsins), but see below re: cephalopods for a clear example of the eyes' polyphyletic origin. Mammalian and cephalopod eyes have completely different physiology. Graft | talk 00:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic? 

message: First, 'misgiving' is used in connection with future events, according to the online Merriam-Webster..
Second, it is important who replied to Berlinski.
Third, Nilsson's reply (ref 14 and 15), are not in a peer reviewed journal (something that would justify a 'scientifically proven that B. was wrong), but on a blog. Northfox (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Berlinski's comments were not in a peer-reviewed paper (because they have no scientific grounding). Therefore no response can be published in a scientific paper.  It is important that this article does not read as if Berlinski's comments have any weight (they don't), but on the other hand I feel that they should be mentioned, as they were well publicised.  Neither Berlinski nor Nilsson's reply are "reliable sources" per Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the best way forwards is... Suggestions, anybody? Verisimilus T 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlinski vs Nilsson 

message: Something wrong with the sentence:
"...if [...]; if further, [...]; and if [...], then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, [...], can hardly be considered real."
What can hardly be considered real?  Is it the difficulty of believing which isn't real?  Perhaps they said things in that way in his day, but it looks strange.  --Hordaland (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've read that correctly. Smith609 Talk 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  --Hordaland (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check Darwin quote 

message: Do you folks think that it would be appropriate to add a pointer to this recent video on the evolution of the eye from NCSE?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA&eurl=http://www.expelledexposed.com/
TomS TDotO (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video from NCSE 

message: Hi, thanks for adding new references to this article.  Do consider using the references to expand the article, or to back up existing facts.  References that are not explicitly referred to in the article are better placed under a "Further reading" header.  Thanks again for your contributions! Smith609 Talk 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New References 

message: The article looks promising, and I'm wikilinking to it from Cambrian explosion. I suggest a (sub-)section on the convergent evolution of the camera eye - I know of camera eyes in vertrbrates, cephalopods and box jellyfish, and I've read somewhere that the camera eye evolved independently about 40 times. Philcha (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Camera eye

message: I think it would help both readers and editors if the article introduced the most common types of eye (camera, including pinhole; compound; basic light sensors, as in many jellyfish; whatever other types are significant) before looking at evolutionary paths. At present the article looks in danger of falling into the trap of considering only the camera eye. Philcha (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of eye

message: *How vision begins: An odyssey (PNAS, 2008) is well worth a look - and incorporation! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful source 

message: I've replaced the image with one that's colour-coded for ease of reading, and annotated via Template:Annotated image so that annotations can be moved or changed easily. BTW the bit in the old caption about the 2 variants of camera eye being inherited from a common Cambrian ancestor was nonsense for several reasons - one is that the camera eye has evolved independently about 40 times, including in  box jellies!
86.18.190.19 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertebrate and octopus eye

message: The following extracts are from the article "Evolution of the Eye".  (My CAPITALS)
1) ... the first predator to gain true imaging would have initiated an "arms race".[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be FORCED to match or exceed any such capabilities to survive. 
2) One of the many hypotheses for "causes" of this diversification holds that the evolution of eyes initiated an arms race that CAUSED a rapid spate of evolution.[citation needed]
3) As certain organisms benefited from the dramatic advantages given by full-fledged eyes, many other organisms were FORCED to evolve similarly advanced eyes in order to compete.[citation needed] 
My understanding is that evolution occurs by way of random mutations, which may be favourable or not.  In particular, evolution is not driven by need.  An organism cannot adapt to a threat no matter how hard it tries.  Thus, in the Cambrian, an eyeless organism either got lucky, or got eaten!
1) and 3) are similar.  I propose to delete 3).  1) should be re-written as follows:
... the first predator to gain true imaging would have gained a significant advantage. Prey animals and competing predators alike would not survive unless they evolved similar capabilities.
On 2), I would appreciate your thoughts.  It may well be TRUE, even if plainly WRONG.
Johnofdundee (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need to phrase it more carefully, and should check what WP:RS (which should be cited) say. There are many modes of predation - ambush, passive (web spiders, some ctenophores, etc.), luring, mimicry, pursuit, etc. - and smell and vibration senses are generally more important than sight to invertebrate predators and to many vertebrate ones; OTOH and advantage is an advantage. There are also counter-measures that do not include improved vision - camouflage, nocturnal activity, speed coupled with heightened other senses, armour ("borrowed" in the case of hermit crabs), weapons and aggressive behaviour (rhino, water bufflao, both very short-sighted), unpleasant taste, poisonous / irritant spines / hairs, mimicking species that have nasty counter-measures - I suspect the list of defences is longer than the list of predator tactics. --Philcha (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed (1) and (3). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An arms race can "cause" evolution to happen at a higher rate, if evolution is defined as 'change'.  In the absence of an arms race, there is less selective pressure, so change happens more slowly.  I've referenced the statement; the suggestion that eyes could have singlehandedly caused the Cambrian explosion is bogus for a swathe of reasons, but it is a widely held belief that arms races cause evolution to accelerate. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "arms race" in the evolution of the eye 

message: Argument from ignorance is a technical term in logic, translated from the Latin "argumentum ad ignorantiam". It may appear to be more polite to change it to "argument from incredulity", but that is not the precise description. Perhaps we can compromise with the Latin expression? Myself, I would prefer just to revert the change, but if we don't get any discussion on this, I will change it to the "compromise" "argumentum ad ignoratium". TomS TDotO (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, use Latin then.  I'd just reverted 5-6 edits by one of these "but it's just a theory" types and don't see any need for provoking them unnecessarily.  Do we need that paragraph at all?  - Hordaland (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think plain English is better, and the "argument from incredulity" seems fine to me (it actually fits better than "ignorance" with what the linked article says). Yes, we do need the paragraph, although I would favor rewording it to be more helpful for anyone who is genuinely wondering about the issue (and remove the rather disdainful "supernatural"). It would be good to have a short para on the fact that it is well understood how all stages of eye evolution occurred, and it is believed to have happened independently around 40(?) times (with links). Yes, this repeats some of the article, but with suitable wording that would be best. I'll try thinking about this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While plain English is better, I dislike the idea of substituting an incorrect term for a correct use of a technical term which might offend the sensitivities of some of the readers. The point being made when one says "argument from ignorance" is not "you are dumb if you argue this way", but that "you are drawing a conclusion from your claim that we do not know". "Argument from incredulity" is something else, something like "just because you can't think of a better answer", and it seems to me to be verging on being an insult. I notice that the article Argument from ignorance does draw a distinction between the two expressions. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical term in Latin? C'mon this is EN.WP. "offend the sensitivities of some of the readers"? You mean Creationists? They get too many concessions already, and WP should not give Creationism any support at all, not even by failing to point out its weaknesses. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that trying to not offend creationists would not work, and would be misguided. However, there are two points that strongly support the "argument from incredulity" phrase. First (using an "argument from authority"), Richard Dawkins does not say "argument from ignorance" in some books I scanned. He does say "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Second, the linked Argument from ignorance article defines the two terms such that "ignorance" is not applicable, while "incredulity" is. I don't think TomS TDotO's statement that "incredulity" would be incorrect is really supported. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the reference given for the statement says "incredulity". Therefore, whatever my personal opinion is on the proper way to phrase it, I must not impose my opinion, but go with the reference. I withdraw my objection. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you said " 'Argument from lack of knowledge' (Argument from Ignorance) "?  I wouldn't think the phrase "lack of knowledge" should not really offend anyone - except a really extreme narcissist (and/or God complex).  It also tells the reader what the technical term ("argument from ignorance") actually means - i.e. that 'ignorance' is not being used in the colloquial sense. Jimw338 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from ignorance

message: The Journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a specials edition regarding the evolution of the eye. Perhaps the content there is interesting as a reference for this article. 85.178.48.79 (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  Thank you!  26 articles, free access - I may waste the weekend on that link.  And there certainly must be useful info, quotes and refs there. Looks like a fine resource. I've added it to the Further reading section. - Hordaland (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution: Education and Outreach 

message: Can someone please correct this? I would, but I'm afraid I might inject some words that do not carry the full meaning, such as "process." As a chemical instead of mechanical adaptation, this may have occurred at any of the early stages of the eye's evolution, and the capability may have disappeared and reappeared, as organisms became predator or prey. It almost makes this read as if this starts off talking about a chemical and not chemical adaptation. The callback should be after and not before. Also, no comma is needed after "reappeared."Ukvilly (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem? I'm not a specialist here, but the text seems ok to me. Are you saying that it's not clear that "capability" is referring to color vision? The last comma could be omitted, but I rather like it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed, I hope. - Hordaland (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd wording. 

message: In this section of the article, some recent edits replaced :File:Vertebrate n octopus eyes.png with :File:Evolution eye.svg, and correspondingly altered the caption. I think the change has some benefits but also some problems. The main issue is that the new image labels the retina as 1 in one eye, and as 2 in the other. That is unnecessarily confusing. It also necessitates some complex wording in the caption which would otherwise be able to simply talk about "the retina (1)...". I would be happy to redo the new svg image so 1 points to the retina (that is, change the lengths of the "1" and "2" lines in the octopus eye (and shift the "Octopus" title). However, maybe the old png image just using simple colors is better? Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the uploader of the  previous png image I'd prefer clearer colour-coding. If you redo it, please include the lines pointing to various parts but exclude all text excluding the numbers - I'll add these using , so the same pic can be used in any language variant of WP. --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary baggage 

message: *Image, article at PLoS. --CopperKettle 06:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 genes orchestrate eye creation in tadpoles

message: I haven't got the book in front of me, but Jackson's Electrodynamics (a well recognized textbook) contains a graph of water's absorption spectrum.  It's transparent to what we call visible light.  That should do for the "citation needed" at the end of "Early eyes," if someone can provide the page reference.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcy (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual Spectrum

message: I believe the wording in the Evolutionary baggage section should be changed.
See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvL.104o8102L
Quote: "The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images."
So, it seems those arguments that the human eye is 'imperfect' have been proven wrong or at least called into major question. Cool!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.247.6.246 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In light of recent science

message: Care should be taken to avoid language which either explicitly or implicitly suggests a target or progress towards a goal in the evolutionary process. Words such as 'primative' 'advanced' 'developed' 'progress' 'improvement' 'better' 'complete' should be used only with great care.
Evolutionary processes act to gradually optimises a gene pool for its environment in response to selection pressure. They do not act to drive the development of a target. It is important to note that a more simple eye is not necessarily 'worse' than a more complex one, it all depends on the organism which possesses it and what selection pressures they are experiencing. 
I will not go through the article and fix this issue unilaterally since it will take some time and care, but it is an important point as sloppy use of language here would act to reinforce a common misconception about evolutionary processes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosthetic Head (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implied directionality / improvement towards a goal. 

message: The article currently states that eyespots are useful "enough to know when they are safely in a cave, for example...".  There is a cited source that I don't have access to.  This is unlikely.  Any mobile creature that's primitive enough to only have photoreceptors is unlikely to want to go into a cave.  "Under a rock", maybe.  Could someone flesh out this statement with an example of an actual, non-hypothetical animal?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "safely in a cave" 

message: The article currently says that only six of the "thirty-something phyla" can discriminate the direction of light to within a few degrees, and that
:However, these phyla account for 96% of living species.
I think it means to say that these phyla account for 96% of the organisms on Earth, not 96% of the species count, but since I'm not sure, I'll ask a more knowledgeable editor to clarify this sentence.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  96 percent 

message: Under "Evolutionary baggage", it's stated that cephalopods' eyes develop "as an invagination of the head surface whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain."  This is close to the end of the article, but it's the first time this apparently important fact is menioned.  Could a more knowledgeable editor discuss this point earlier in the article, presumably at the point where it's mentioned that eyes have evolved several times, and in any case outside of the "evolutionary baggage" section it's currently in?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is at least 7 years old and still haven't been fixed. I searched the source given and couldn't find the information that the vertebrate eye originated as an extension of the brain - it doesn't even discusses the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Searching for other sources I could find that, in embryology, the retina develops as an extension of the brain, but I couldn't find the same information regarding evolution, and neither how it compares to the cephalopod retina in this point. So, mainly because the cited source doesn't confirm it, I'm assuming that last phrase is wrong and shall be removed. And without that the whole section is out of place, as it discusses the benefits of different retina configurations and no evolutionary aspect, so it fits better on Cephalopod eye. I'm removing that section for now, if anyone have more knowledge on this you can put it back explaining it better and using an actually relevant reference. Frlara (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cephalopods 

message: This article fails to explain evolutin of two eyes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pair of eyes 

message: This article only discusses the evolution of camera-type eyes. An article titled "evolution of the eye" should also include information on the evolution of compound eyes, which are just as widespread.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.184.173 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I'm sort of cheating here, as it's primarily just my curiosity, but I think it could make an interesting addition to the article in the blind spot/baggage section, if someone finds out. So it's not 100% cheating. --Extremophile (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the box jellyfish have a blindspot as well? 

message: The history section is misnamed.  It is simply a brief mention of the "intelligent design" paradigm, which has been discredited (specifically in the case of eye evolution, to keep things simple). As of 2013, we are able to show successive "steps" of development, each more adaptive (potentially) than its predecessor.  Unfortunately, the ID people will no doubt want to neuter any facts which contradict their dogma.  Withing the last 2 years, I read a review article in Science magazine (AAAS) which dealt with eye evolution. It is in the references?  It should be.  Anyway, if there is significant controversy still (from the ID crowd) then that is a valid part of the article.  But it is a small part of the history of the science and does not belong, imho, in the histroy section.  My recollection of the Science article was that some of the work (arthropods or crusteceans? ?) was very recent.  This seems to put into question the claim that "SOON" after Darwin wrote that quoted paragraph he was vindicated. 150 years is not "soon".173.189.78.110 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section ?? 

message: The old text didn't make sense "if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple"; evolution happens from simple to complex.
Anyway I updated the text and this is the reference. Imad marie (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin Quote 

message: In the section, "One origin or many" the sentence read, "the PAX6 gene controls where the eye develops in organisms ranging from to mice to humans to fruit flies." But mice and humans are both mammals, which diverged only ~15% as long ago as did mice and fruit flies, and which, according to the referenced articles, use PAX6 genes identical in amino acid sequence. I changed it to read, "the PAX6 gene controls where the eye develops in organisms ranging from octopuses to mice to fruit flies" because octopuses, mice, and fruit flies all diverged at nearly the same time, close to 530 million years ago, they represent three utterly distinct lineages of animals, and yet they still all use PAX6 to control the development of their eyes. I provided a peer reviewed reference for octopuses using PAX6 in eye development.Nick Beeson (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human 

message: I agree with the previous post that this section has to be given a new title. The current one is very misleading to the reader, as there is no talk of historical research in that paragraph. It is simply the classic intelligent design vs evolution debate, and a new section should be created for this if we wish for it to be included. A possible title for it could be "Classic Source of Debate" or "Darwin's Impact".
I still think that we should include some aspect of research in this article, though. Perhaps a section titled "Modern Research" would be fitting. There is all sorts of modern research going that aims to discover different genes and mechanisms involved in the eye's evolution. One prominent author is Dan-E. Nilsson. Although his earlier works are much more famous, particularly his paper explaining the timeline for the evolution of the eye, there are several that have been published more recently. I think modern applications with any topic is a subject of curiosity for readers and would be a good addition.
Fink.182 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Research needs to be renamed & updated 

message: In this section, the first paragraph is good. However, the second one seems like it was added without much thought put in. The paper used as a reference (reference #7 in this Wiki article) has tons of detail in describing the evolution of the eye and I think a little more detail would be helpful. To begin, I will include what Nilsson's paper actually includes, which is the pessimistic approximation of 364,000 generations needed for the development of the camera eye. Also, the authors clearly state that the eye doesn't evolve on its own, independent of the organism. The actual number of generations needed for the eye to evolve in different species can we wide ranging, but their pessimistic estimate is the best we have.
Feel free to add more content after me. Fink.182 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead. I won't be able to help as this is not my area, but updates are good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail in "Rate of Evolution" 

message: The section titled "Evolutionary Baggage" is off to a good start, yet could use some improvements and added detail. It mentions the most common description of the way the photoreceptors are located behind many other cell layers, and how this is a result of evolution. Another main piece of baggage that is not mentioned is the blind spot, where the optic nerve exits the eye. Here are some links to a blog that was written by a physician named Steven Novella on the disadvantages that the vertebrate eye has due to its evolution:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-not-so-intelligent-design-of-the-human-eye/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-not-so-intelligent-design-of-the-human-eye-part-ii/
^^ These can be used to comprehensively cover the flaws the vertebrate eye has and how these are a consequence of evolution by natural selection.
Fink.182 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperfections in the vertebrate eye 

message: This article does touch on some selection forces such as eyespots allowing for circadian patterns, higher resolution aiding in survival/predation, and better recognition with color vision.  However, I feel it has some gaps in evolutionary forces and their effects.  I think the article could benefit from further explanation in the evolutionary baggage category.  This topic is very interesting, but I think it could be more informational with some additions as suggested in the “Evolutionary baggage” category of this talk page.  The article also points out that the earliest photosensitivity was developed aquatically.  In addition to the light filtering effects of water, the refractive indexes would be different for an organism in air.  I feel it would be a useful addition to include some information about how these forces worked on the original aquatic eye.  
Kreinbrink.31 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection Pressures 

message: I made an addition to the Early Eyes section.  I was interested in how the layers allowing for specialization in transparent humour or air and water operation, could be involved in moulting.  I thought it could be an interesting addition to include an example. 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2008.00138.x/abstract;jsessionid=794AD37010C17B485C06DD42029A308E.f03t04
Kreinbrink.31 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moulting Example 

message: Something that may eventually be worth incorporating into the article: there is some fantastic research in this Nature paper, reported on here and here on the evolution of an "eye" (an "eye-like ocelloid") in single-celled organisms, including tracking down the origin of each of the components of the system. 
Citation:
:
-- The Anome (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of a primitive eye 

message: Will someone with competence in the evolution of the eye, please look at yesterday's comment(s) on the Talk:Eye page?  Some clarifying is needed in the article.  Thanks,  
--Hordaland (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye --  help needed 

message: In the Evolutionary baggage section of the article, there appears to be an error in the illustration/caption comparing vertebrate and octopus eyes.  While the illustration clearly uses the number "1" to indicate the retina and the number "2" to indicate nerve fibers in both cases, the caption says that these are numbered oppositely in the case of the octopus.192.249.47.204 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary baggage illustration error

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evolution of the eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915061324/http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: New paper at PNAS, April 10, 2023:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214815120
"The vertebrate eye was described by Charles Darwin as one of the greatest potential challenges to a theory of natural selection by stepwise evolutionary processes. While numerous evolutionary transitions that led to the vertebrate eye have been explained, some aspects appear to be vertebrate specific with no obvious metazoan precursor. One critical difference between vertebrate and invertebrate vision hinges on interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP, also known as retinol-binding protein, RBP3), which enables the physical separation and specialization of cells in the vertebrate visual cycle by promoting retinoid shuttling between cell types. While IRBP has been functionally described, its evolutionary origin has remained elusive. Here, we show that IRBP arose via acquisition of novel genetic material from bacteria by interdomain horizontal gene transfer (iHGT). We demonstrate that a gene encoding a bacterial peptidase was acquired prior to the radiation of extant vertebrates >500 Mya and underwent subsequent domain duplication and neofunctionalization to give rise to vertebrate IRBP."
Link to peer-reviewed (I think) paper: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214815120 
Very interesting  stuff, even if the details of the microbiology and biochemistry are beyond me, at first reading anyway. Looks like a definite add to this article! Who would have thought, bacteria may have brought it along via iHGT! --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bacterial origin of a key innovation in the evolution of the vertebrate eye" 

message: Why are the eyes of every living being at the same place i.e. side by side Ramnandanbhagat (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyes