https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-trilobites-had-crystal-eyes-and-theyre-still-a-mys...

"...we know that trilobites had compound eyes like insects, consisting of clusters of photoreception units called ommatidia, each with its own photoreceptors and lenses. Examinations of broken sections of the fossilized lenses reveal a crystalline material made of calcite.

"Pure calcite is transparent, so, in theory, light could penetrate it and be focused, where the photoreceptors might detect it. As with insect vision, there was likely a trade-off: Trilobites probably didn't see in high spatial resolution, but they were particularly sensitive to motion.

"There were three kinds of these trilobite eyes. The oldest and most common is a type known as holochroal, in which small ommatidia were covered by a single corneal membrane, with the adjacent lenses in direct contact with each other.

"The abathochroal eye is only seen in the family Eodiscidae; the small lenses are each covered by a thin cornea.

***

"Finally, the schizochroal eye is only seen in the Phacopina suborder. The lenses are larger, widely separated, and each has its own cornea. They were probably, scientists believe, highly specialized.

"The holochroal eye is the most similar to modern apposition eyes seen in some insects and crustaceans, and scientists believe they worked in a similar way. Each ommatidium operates individually, and the image the insect sees is a mosaic of all the images combined.

"...scientists have found that schizochroal eyes have what is known as a doublet lens structure.

"That means the lens has two layers, each with a different refractive index, that could correct for birefringence, almost like the trilobites had built-in spectacles. Lenses of this type were invented, separately, by mathematicians Rene Descartes and Christian Huygens in the 17th century, unaware that trilobites had beaten them to the punch.

"For all our understanding of the various structures of the trilobite's eye, though, we still don't quite understand how the schizochroal eye worked, whether it was similar to an apposition eye or did something differently, as the different structure would suggest.

"A recent study showed schizochroal eyes are far more complex than we thought, which brings us closer. Each lens was found to cover a small compound eye of its own, forming a sort of "hyper-eye".

Comment: there are no earlier eyes!! Trilobites just simply appear. This just intensifies the meaning of the Cambrian gap.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210930101416.htm

"An international research team has found an eye system in trilobites of the suborder Phacopina from the Devonian (390 million years B.P.) that is unique in the animal kingdom: each of the about 200 lenses of a hyper-facet eye spans a group of six normal compound-eye-facets, forming a compound eye itself. In addition to the hyper-facetted eyes, the researchers, led by zoologist Dr. Brigitte Schoenemann at the University of Cologne's Institute for Didactics of Biology, identified a structure that they believe to be a local neural network which directly processed the information from this special eye, and an optic nerve that carried information from the eye to the brain.

***

"Most trilobites had compound eyes similar to those that are still found in insects today: a large number of hexagonal facets form the eye. There are usually eight photoreceptors under each facet. Comparable to the image of a computer screen, which is built up from individual pixels, an image is built up from the individual facets. In dragonflies, there are up to ten thousand individual facets. In order to produce a coherent image, the facets must be very close together and connected by neurons. However, in the trilobite suborder Phacopinae, the externally visible lenses of the compound eyes are much larger, up to 1 mm in diameter and more. In addition, they are set farther apart.

***

"Dr Schoenemann's analysis of Wilhelm Stürmer's 40-year-old X-ray archive now suggests a different interpretation: a hyper-compound eye. Each phacopid had two eyes, one on the left and one on the right. 'Each of these eyes consisted of about 200 lenses up to 1 mm in size,' said Schoenemann. 'Under each of these lenses, in turn, at least 6 facets are set up, each of which together again makes up a small compound eye. So we have about 200 compound eyes (one under each lens) in one eye.' These sub-facets are arranged in either one ring or two rings. 'Underneath sat a foam-like nest that was probably a small neural network to process the signals,' the zoologist added. The filaments Stürmer found in fact did turn out to be nerves leading from the eyes to the trilobite's brain. Further examination with modern computer tomography confirmed these structures.

***

"Wilhelm Stürmer was the head of the X-ray department at Siemens and an avid paleontologist. With a VW bus equipped as an X-ray station, he drove from quarry to quarry to X-ray fossils. Among other things, he discovered structures called filaments under the animals' eyes, which he thought were fossils of soft tissues, especially optic nerves. 'At that time, the consensus was that only bones and teeth, the hard parts of living things, could be seen in the fossils, but not the soft parts, such as intestines or nerves,' Schoenemann explained. Stürmer's heir gave the zoologist his archive. But the hobby-paleontologist had not only correctly identified the optic nerve, she notes: 'On an X-ray negative, there was an arrow in red pen pointing to the structure of the six lower facets under a main lens. This probably indicated that Stürmer had already recognized the hyper-compound eye.''

Comment: highly designed compound eyes, in a form now used today by insects. Illustrates the design gap in physical forms from Edicaran to Cambrian. From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps and able to demonstrate the nerve fibers. The gap cannot bed denied.


> dhw: Tell that to Talbott and McClintock (see above). This comment does not answer the questions you have quoted. Individual programming? Or a mechanism that enables them to work out their own particular designs? If you think it's the mechanism, you are back to a mental level, of whatever kind.-No I am not. It is all automatic physico-chemical. Nothing mental except the original planning.-> 
> dhw;I see nothing wrong with faith either, except when the faithful accuse others of having the wrong faith, or criticize others because they have no faith. Chance and God are equally irrational hypotheses. I see nothing wrong with exploring other possibilities.-Neither do I, but I am convinced your third way cannot exist. Firmly, cannot!-An example of automatic molecular behavior doing a job:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/04/01/in-nerve-cells-an-energy-source-nobody-knew-about/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130401

dhw: You do a wonderful job of defending your own faith, but you have always admitted that ultimately reason is not enough ... one must take a gigantic leap. If you then criticize others for leaping in a different direction, or for not leaping at all, you simply enter the realm of pots and kettles.-My problem is I think the 'leap in another direction' is not a leap at all but a nebulous hope that there is some weird sort of 'third way' to get around the requirement of a leap across the chasm. There is still only chance or design. If you reject chance only design is left. But inventing a third way hasn't happened. All of the scientists who point out the problem stop after they have pointed it out. There is nothing suggested after the stop, except to say 'we have a problem'. 'We' don't, they do because the next logical step is not allowed in their minds. I see nothing wrong with faith.

david: A third way or no way!- Wishful thinking to avoid choosing. A third way is wishful thinking by those who cannot imagine as a First Cause a god of any sort, and for some reason are not willing to venture in that direction. Bacterial decisions are simply chemical as this article shows. The flagellum has been studied until there is little left to reveal. Bacteria can tumble in place or run in a direction. It all depends upon what their chemical sensors detect. The bacteria are chemical reactors. No nerve cells to create any kind of mental state or panpsychism. The chemicals around them cause a series of events to make their flagella react to move either toward, away, or stay still. This is all automatic behavior. No intentionality implied. The only way panpsychism can be present here is if we propose that a 'mind' invented this system of run or tumble. I'll accept that! -http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001480-And a very successful invention it is, since bacteria have been around for about 3.5 billion years and can live in places we humans cannot even consider. And we can think and plan and invent nutty ideas like panpsychism as a way out from the only two possibilties for evolution reaching this argumentative point: chance or design. Wish for a third way, and keep wishing. It isn't there.

dhw: "Although the word has its legitimate uses, you will not find me speaking of design, simply because — as I've made abundantly clear in previous articles — organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within — at a deep level the ancients recognized as that of the logos informing all things. It is a sharing of the springs of life and being, not a mere receptivity to some sort of external mechanical tinkering modeled anthropocentrically on human engineering."-This is the same cop out Nagel uses. There is a nebulous third way ,a 'logos' at the center of life that is just there all by itself, out of nowhere. What is that 'logos that informs all things' and where did it come from? Again out of thin air, an uncaused cause? Again horse manure. A theory that stops short of any conclusion, after presenting all that reasonable logic and coming to the edge of the precipice. A third way or no way!

Just a reminder, life started this complex. It had to. Anything less is not living. Therefore the intelligence that did the score for the orchestra of life had to be that complex, from the beginning! If by pansychism you are using a definition of intelligence by dribs and drabs, here and there, at any stage in the development of life, then your theory doesn't fit Talbott's essay. Talbott did not write this essay to drive folks to God, but to demand that we shift our attention to the developing overall picture. As for his theology, I have no clue, but hiss essay strongly supports a belief in God.-This article on archaea supports my point of view:-http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/uota-uot032713.php

David: Talbott has made the point that the molecules of the genome are a finely tuned orchestra, and that Watson and Crick and those that followed had no sense of imagination, a common problem in today's scientists grounded in methodological reductionist materialism. The complexity is truly staggering. It is an orchestra of molecules all acting under physico-chemical controls. So far the essence of life, the conductor, is not seen, but felt by looking/watching all the moving parts. There may not be a conductor on site in the individual cell, but the essence of life as created by the conductor'score! The victory of life as in Beethoven's Fifth. Only a genius could have directed the 'score' of life's music. Talbott was not defining any version of panpsychism. He was directing us at the scored complexity of life, to my mind directing us to appreciate the planning and not miss the forest for the trees. Both Tony and I are trying to provide you with the proper logical compass to see the intelligence behind the plan.-
Exactly! I wonder if it is my back ground in music that makes this so painfully obvious to me..If one note is off, or one instrument is missing, it changes everything. -> 
>David: Just a reminder, life started this complex. It had to. Anything less is not living. Therefore the intelligence that did the score for the orchestra of life had to be that complex, from the beginning! -Yes! Absolutely!

dhw: Of course there are many versions of panpsychism, which is why I put mine in inverted commas. I note that you have not yet commented on a remark by another of your recommended authors, Stephen L. Talbott, who having delved deep into the complexities of the genome, writes: "...you will not find me speaking of design, simply because [...] organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within..." (see my post of 26 March at 14.46).-Talbott has made the point that the molecules of the genome are a finely tuned orchestra, and that Watson and Crick and those that followed had no sense of imagination, a common problem in today's scientists grounded in methodological reductionist materialism. The complexity is truly staggering. It is an orchestra of molecules all acting under physico-chemical controls. So far the essence of life, the conductor, is not seen, but felt by looking/watching all the moving parts. There may not be a conductor on site in the individual cell, but the essence of life as created by the conductor'score! The victory of life as in Beethoven's Fifth. Only a genius could have directed the 'score' of life's music. Talbott was not defining any version of panpsychism. He was directing us at the scored complexity of life, to my mind directing us to appreciate the planning and not miss the forest for the trees. Both Tony and I are trying to provide you with the proper logical compass to see the intelligence behind the plan.-Just a reminder, life started this complex. It had to. Anything less is not living. Therefore the intelligence that did the score for the orchestra of life had to be that complex, from the beginning! If by pansychism you are using a definition of intelligence by dribs and drabs, here and there, at any stage in the development of life, then your theory doesn't fit Talbott's essay. Talbott did not write this essay to drive folks to God, but to demand that we shift our attention to the developing overall picture. As for his theology, I have no clue, but hiss essay strongly supports a belief in God.


> Tony: Convergence is even harder to explain in common evolution or your intelligent genome theory. Two independent intelligences arriving to the same precise solution to a given problem without contact between them is extremely unlikely, verging on impossible. There was a theory about that at one point, but I can not remember the name of it. -Simon Conway Morris bases an entire book on convergence to show teleology: "Life's Solution".
> 
> Tony: I don't. As I keep stating repeatedly, every one of these theories, including mine, requires faith. However, there is no reason that your faith should not be based on sound reason and logic. I labeled it willful disbelief because that is what it is. -Dhw has told us why. To paraphrase him, he has told us he cannot imagine a God as first cause, even though he accepts the idea of a first cause as reasonable. I cannot imagine God either, nor can anyone else, but He is a logical endpoint to reach from all we know.
> 
> 
> >DHW: Clearly I've missed something here.
> 
> Tony: Life can not come from non-life without the not insignificant requirement of initial information and energy.-Exactly what was missed.


> OK, you theorize that it was all pre-planned, and I theorize that it evolved without a plan. No doubt many innovations were not "from necessity", and maybe evolution itself was not necessary, since bacteria have survived to this day. But when conditions allowed, the intelligent genome produced its own inventions ... all part of the "open-ended experimentation" that characterizes the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Every innovation you list can just as easily have been the product of the intelligent genome ... whether invented by God or not - without a divine "push". After 3.8 billion years of evolution, the energy within changing materials could have learned all it needed to know for its increasingly complicated experiments.
> -I wanted to dig a little deeper into this. Which innovations, in particular, were not a necessity? Bear in mind that you can not look simply at the individual species, but have to consider the biosphere as a whole.

DHW: I've covered this above, in the sentence about interbreeding, but in any case there is no reason why the "intelligent genome" in multiple organisms exposed to the same environment should not produce the same innovation. The process of "convergence" has frequently been observed, for instance in desert plants even on different continents that come up with the same solutions. Similarly several Maelestes gobienses, suddenly finding themselves in changed conditions, might well simultaneously provide themselves with a doggy innovation. Has anyone ever observed God creating a breeding pair?-Convergence is even harder to explain in common evolution or your intelligent genome theory. Two independent intelligences arriving to the same precise solution to a given problem without contact between them is extremely unlikely, verging on impossible. There was a theory about that at one point, but I can not remember the name of it. -> 
> dhw: Finally, back to (quoting Tony): [See, the problem with your intelligent genome is that it presupposes evolution from a common ancestor is true.] There simply is no evidence of that beyond speculation based on observations that could mean something else entirely." 
> 
> dhw: You have applied this argument to the "intelligent genome" hypothesis, and I understand your point of view. But when I apply it to your God hypothesis, you seem to find it difficult to grasp (even labelling it "willful disbelief"). I wonder why.-
I don't. As I keep stating repeatedly, every one of these theories, including mine, requires faith. However, there is no reason that your faith should not be based on sound reason and logic. I labeled it willful disbelief because that is what it is. You have untold complexity all around you working in exquisite harmony, complexity of the type that we have NEVER seen appearing spontaneously without the intervention of an intelligence, and yet you insist that it happened. Whether you apply that random chance at the start of the universe or the start of life is irrelevant because you are starting at the basis of random chance instead of purposeful intelligence. Humanity continues to invent new theories that completely ignore the reality of what they see because the thought of something that immense, that powerful scares them stupid and makes them feel weak and ineffectual. - 
>DHW: Although the "panpsychist" alternative I have offered naturally demands a similar leap of faith, at least it has the merit (in my eyes) of NOT depending on chance or on an unknowable God. I'm not sure what your final comments signify, other than the fact what without life, any theory about life can have no explanatory power. Without a universe any theory about the universe can have no explanatory power either. Clearly I've missed something here.-Life can not come from non-life without the not insignificant requirement of initial information and energy.

dhw: Although the "panpsychist" alternative I have offered naturally demands a similar leap of faith, at least it has the merit (in my eyes) of NOT depending on chance or on an unknowable God. -Your 'panpsychist alternative' has no basis as a proposal from what we know about the genome of life. The leap it requires is much more than faith. It would mean simplifying all of organic chemistry. The genome contains information which drives the chemicals of life to act like automatons, but the chemicals have no thoughts of their own as your term inplies. When an organism becomes uncomfortable in its environment, by which I mean it has chemical signals of difficulty in pursuing living, the genome chemically recognizes this problem and begins to arrange for epigenetic adaptations, all following a built-in coded mechanism in the genome. This is Shapiro's point. It is also why he is still an atheist. He is still willing to accept this degree of complexity from chance mutational changes. And it is why the ID people love him, since they cannnot accept the concept of chance for this much complexity.- Nagel would jump at your 'third way' pan-psychism, but he knows it is not reasonable. The issue remains, unsolved for those who won't accept God, as the source of the information. Only a thinking mind can create complex information or invent a code like DNA! I believe your problem is that you have just a vague knowledge of biochemistry, so you do not see the depth of the complexity. I think Shapiro is trapped because he is committed to methodologic reductionist naturalism in his role as a University professor.