Misconceptions about the Evolution of Complexity

7Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Despite data and theory from comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genomics, and evolutionary developmental biology, antievolutionists continue to present the eye as an example of a structure too complex to have evolved. They stress what we have yet to explain about the development and evolution of eyes and present incomplete information as evidence that evolution is a "theory in crisis." An examination of the evidence, however, particularly evidence that has accumulated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, refutes antievolutionists' claims. The distribution of eyes in extant organisms, combined with what we now know about the control of eye development across diverse groups of organisms, provides significant evidence for the evolution of all major components of the eye, from molecular to morphological, and provides an excellent test of predictions based on common ancestry.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Petto, A. J., & Mead, L. S. (2008). Misconceptions about the Evolution of Complexity. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(4), 505–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0082-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free