The human eye is an incredibly complex organ, it acts like a camera to collect and focus light and changes this light into an electrical signals that the brain then reads to form images. Instead of using film, the eye has specialized components such as the retina that detects light and process it using many types of neurons. The eye is so complex that its origin has long been a hot topic of debate and is often used to defend a creationist point of view, they say the eye is too complex to have evolved instead it must has been designed. The eye is a system that cannot function in the absence of any of its components. Even Charles Darwin remarked in the origin of species that ‘it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection’. (Fernald. R.) He did however firmly believe that the eye did evolve in this way, despite the only the small amount of evidence at that time.

This evidence is hard to come by since soft-tissue structures like the eye rarely ever fossilize. However the scientific community has made recent advancements in tracking the origin of the eye by studying the formation of eyes in developing embryos and comparing these different structures and genes across many species to construct when and where key traits arose. The study indicates that ‘the human eye took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light senor to sophisticated optical organ.’ (Lamb. T)

Humans have an unbroken linage going back for 4 billion years. Almost a billion years ago simple multicellular organisms split into 2 groups, a radially symmetrical body and a bilaterally symmetrical, the bilateral then split further into two critical groups, one that gave rise to today’s invertebrates and another group whose decedents included our own vertebrate linage. (Lamb. T) This evolutionary split laid the support and ground work for the emergence of the human eye.

Compound vs camera

During the Cambrian explosion two radically different eyes arose. The first eye was the compound eye, in this eye, thousands of individual photoreceptor units work together to form a wide view image with moderate resolution or clarity. (s Nilsson. D) However, these eyes are not suited to large animals since it would be overly large, so as body size increased selective pressures began to favor a compact eye, the camera style eye. (Pitman. S.) This eye has photoreceptor cells which share a single lens, they are arranged as a sheet that lines the inside of the eye called the retina. (Lamb. T) There are two types of photoreceptors in jawed vertebrates, which include humans, cones, which enable daylight vision, and rods, which enable nighttime vision.

So where does this eye come from?

All key features of the eye are the same across all eyes of jawed vertebrates, of which humans are one. This suggests that this animal group inherited the features from a common ancestor and that the eye had already evolved to this stage 450 million years ago. Going back further the lamprey is one of the few surviving descendants of the jawless vertebrates. (Lamb. T) This fish also has a camera style eye complete with three layers and a lens, similar to our own eye. (Hardman. H) This indicates that an eye similar to our own must have been present in the common ancestor in both jawless and jawed vertebrates living about 500 million years ago. Clues to this an even earlier eye come from the hagfish another jawless fish. The hagfish eye lacks a lens and is buried deep beneath translucent skin. Importantly it has a 2-layered retina lacking the bipolar cells found in the human eye which process information from the photoreceptors. (Lamb. T) This means hagfish’s photoreceptor cells must connect directly to the sensory out-put neurons suggesting its eye may actually affect behavior and daily and seasonal rhythms, much like the human pineal gland, rather than playing a part in vision. According to Trevor D. Lamb ‘the ancestral eye of proto-vertebrates first served as a non visual organ and only later evolved the components needed for spatial vision’. Supporting this evolutionary idea, early in human embryological development the human eye is remarkable similar to that of the hagfish, then with further development takes on similarities to the lamprey eye before reaching full development into the sophisticated organ of the human.

The shape of the eye.

The shape of the eye took the classic C-shape in a remarkably short amount of time, around 500 million years. The eye began as a simple cluster of light sensory cells commonly know as an eye spot, these eye spots were only able to distinguish between light and dark and not the direction of light. (Pitman. S) Gradually selective pressures caused the spot to form cups, this slight curve allowed the direction of light to be known and therefore the direction of a predator/prey, an obvious evolutionary advantage. As time went on the cup deepened and the opening became smaller. Simultaneously the number of photoreceptors increased, enabling shapes to be dimly distinguished. (Pitman. S) To prevent damage to the eyespot a thin transparent layer of cells formed over the ‘hole’. This layer of cells enabled specialized segregated contents of the eye to optimize the image, beginning to perfect the camera style image. Gradually the protective layer of cells split into two that allowed fluid into the space in between the two layers allowing for greater image resolution and wider viewing angles. (Shimeld. S) This fluid and the layers form what we call the lens.

Scars of evolution

For every complex and ingenious feature that evolution has created in the eye, there are a number of flaws. For example the retina is inside out which means that light must travel through capillaries to reach the photoreceptors, this creates unwanted shadows which decreases image quality. However these defects only serve to prove the existence of evolution, which is ultimately a process of trial and error, survival of the fittest. (Lamb. T)

Many scientists believe that the human face will evolve to fill the proportion of the golden rectangle, thought by many scientists and artists to be the most atheistically pleasing proportion. This is because faces with this ratio appear to be more to be attractive. So to fit this ratio the eyes must become larger, with more emphasis placed on the colour of the iris. The ratio displays evolution at its finest where natural selection will always support the ‘healthy appearance’ (Hardman. H)

The human eye is an incredibly complex product of millions of years of evolution. From its humble begin as a small cluster of light sensitive cells the eye has developed into a neurological intricate organ with each component of the eye making up a smooth system, which cannot function without the presence of every single component. Its very complexity makes the evolution of the eye hard to pin point, however when looking at the evolution of each component separately the complete evolution of the eye makes perfect sense.

Bibliography

Emberson. J. 2005. ‘the evolution of the eye’. URL: http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2013/07/the-evolution-of-the-eye.html

Fernald. R. 2000. ‘Evolution of eyes’ Stanford University Neuroscience. Current opinion in neurobiology, Elsevier science Ltd.

Hardman. H. 2005. ‘How the vertebrate eye, as we know it, emerged over evolutionary time?’ URL: http://www.medilexicon.com/mntnews.php?s=eye_health

Lamb. T, Collin. S, Pugh. E. 2011. ‘Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

Lamb. T. 2011. ‘Evolution of the eye’. Scientific America July 2011.

Nilsson. D, Pelger. S. 1994. ‘A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Biological sciences, Vol. 256, No.1345. URL: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf

Pitman. S. 2001. ‘the evolution of the human eye’. URL: http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#Gradations

Shimeld. S. Slingsby. C. 2005. ‘urochordate gamma-crystallin and the evolution origin of the vertebrate eye lens.’ Current Biology. Vol. 15 pages 1684-1689. URL: http://www.current-biology.com

Source Emberson. J. 2005. ‘the evolution of the eye’. URL: http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2013/07/the-evolution-of-the-eye.html

Author Jill Emberson
Title The evolution of the eye
Publication 2005
Year
Publisher ABC

Initial author appraisal
Jill a well renowned radio journalist with a passion for the sciences. Having experience in the field however she followed her love in radio and became the host of her own program on ABC radio where she interviews well renowned scientist on different topics. She has multiply articles being published in several media sources including the Sydney Morning Herald.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned journalist with several articles published in different media, which causes no speculation. The information presented in this report is supported by other investigations and also the information is reinforced by similar figures by several other peer reviewed scientific articles.

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles, and has similar figures to that in the Evolution of the eye by Trevor Lamb a neuroscientist at Curtin University.

Source Fernald. R. 2000. ‘Evolution of eyes’ Stanford University Neuroscience. Current opinion in neurobiology, Elsevier science Ltd. methods?’ Griffith University. Nathan 411 Australia.
Author Russell D Fernald
Title Evolution of eyes
Publication 2000
Year
Publisher Elsevier science

Initial author appraisal
Russell D. Fernald is professor of Neuroscience, Biology and the Benjamin Scott Crocker Professor of Human Biology. Professor Fernald joined the Stanford faculty in 1991 from the University of Oregon where he was a founding member and director of the Institute for Neuroscience. His research is focused on how social behavior influences the brain. In 1999, he received the Javits Neuroscience Investigator Award, the highest honor bestowed on researchers by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, given to investigators who have a distinguished record of substantial contribution in neurological science. In 2003 Fernald was named a Fellow in the American Association of Arts and Sciences, and in 2004 received the prestigious Rank Prize, an award established by Lord and Lady Rank to honor research that has advanced scientific knowledge in the realm of vision or optoelectronics. He was also honored for work that he did with collaborators on understanding how vertebrate lenses function. Professor Fernald was awarded the Bing Fellowship (1996-99) for innovative contributions to undergraduate education, and in 1998 won the Allen V. Cox medal for fostering undergraduate students interest in research. In 2000, Fernald was awarded the Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel Award for distinctive contribution to undergraduate education, and in 2003 was named the Mimi and Peter Haas University Fellow in Undergraduate Education.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of university level particularly people who are interested in evolution of the eye. This makes the information specific to only the eye.

Objective reasoning
This author also has numerous other titles on similar topics, which causes no speculation. The information presented in this report is supported by other investigations.

Writing style
The text is specific to the eye and has very specific terms used in this field however it contains insight into evolution in general as well as the current structures of the eye.

Evaluation and reviews
The article has been published in the Elsevier Science magazine and has been peer reviewed by other members of the neuroscience faculty at Stanford University

Source Hardman. H. 2005. ‘How the vertebrate eye, as we know it, emerged over evolutionary time?’ URL: http://www.medilexicon.com/mntnews.php?s=eye_health

Author Heidi Hardman
Title How the vertebrate eye, as we know it, emerged over evolutionary time
Publication 2005
Year
Publisher medilexicon

Initial author appraisal
Heidi Hardman work as an Press Officer for Cell Press atCambridge, MA. Not much else is known about the author however there are numerous other articles at cell press that have Heidi Hardman’s name attached to it. Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. It also offers several other articles that relate to the topic

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
Although little is known about the author there are several other articles published with links to her name which causes no speculation. The information presented in this report is supported by other investigations and also the information is reinforced by similar figures by several other peer reviewed scientific articles which are referenced in the article.

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles which are referenced in the bibliography, and has similar figures to that in the Evolution of the eye by Trevor Lamb a neuroscientist at Curtin University.

Source Lamb. T, Collin. S, Pugh. E. 2011. ‘Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

Author Trevor Lamb
Title Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
Publication 2011
Year
Publisher NCBI

Initial author appraisal
Professor Trevor Lamb is Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in the Australian National University. He obtained a degree in Electronic Engineering from the University of Melbourne, and then a PhD in Physiology from the University of Cambridge, where he remained for over 30 years before returning to Australia in 2003 as a Federation Fellow. His research involves the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which retinal rod and cone photoreceptors respond to light, and, more recently, the evolution of these cells and of our eye. His 77 publications have received over 6000 citations. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2005, following his return to Australia. Despite taking early retirement in 2011, he actively continues his research.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned and has multiply other articles on similar other topics and has articles published in the scientific magazine ‘scientific America which indicates that it is a reliable source

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles some published in a world-renowned magazine indicating they are reliable.

Source Lamb. T, Collin. S, Pugh. E. 2011. ‘Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

Author Shaun P Collin
Title Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
Publication 2011
Year
Publisher NCBI

Initial author appraisal a WA Premier’s Research Fellow and Winthrop Professor at The University of Western Australia. He heads a large Neuroecology Group that investigates the neural basis of behaviour in both invertebrates and vertebrates, with special emphasis on sensory systems and vision. Before joining UWA from The University of Queensland, where he was a Professor within the School of Biomedical Sciences for 10 years, he spent appreciable periods of time in Canada, the United States, Germany and Australia on a range of prestigious Research Fellowships (ARC QEII, Fulbright, Alexander von Humboldt, Grass). Using a range of cutting edge techniques, his Group investigates the impacts of light on biodiversity, sustainability and health in a large diversity of animals, including humans. Professor Collin has published over 170 scientific papers, including two books, and sits on the Editorial Boards of five international journals. He also sits on the College of Experts Panel for the Australian Research Council (ARC) and is a member of the Technology and Innovation Advisory Council (TIAC) for the WA State Government.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned and has multiply other articles on similar other topics which indicates that it is a reliable source

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles some published in a world-renowned magazine indicating they are reliable.

Source Lamb. T, Collin. S, Pugh. E. 2011. ‘Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

Author Edward Pugh
Title Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
Publication 2011
Year
Publisher NCBI

Initial author appraisal
He received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Spring Hill College, Mobile, Alabama, in 1968. A National Science Foundation graduate fellow, he received a master’s degree in mathematics at the University of Michigan in 1970 as part of the PhD program in mathematical psychology, which he completed in 1972 in the laboratory of Mathew Alpern, himself a winner of the Friedenwald Medal awarded by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology in 1974. In the same year, Ed moved to the University of Pennsylvania as Assistant Professor of Psychology, where he advanced through the academic ranks, becoming an associate professor in 1978 and a professor in 1983. In 1999, Ed joined the Department of Ophthalmology at Penn as the Jules and Doris Stein Research to Prevent Blindness Professor. Ed has received several major awards, including the first Troland Award of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and the Alcon Research Award, jointly awarded to Trevor and Ed in 2003.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned and has multiply other articles on similar other topics which indicates that it is a reliable source

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles some published in a world-renowned magazine indicating they are reliable.

Source Lamb. T. 2011. ‘Evolution of the eye’. Scientific America July 2011.

Author Trevor Lamb
Title Evolution of the eye
Publication 2011
Year
Publisher Scientific America

Initial author appraisal
Professor Trevor Lamb is Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in the Australian National University. He obtained a degree in Electronic Engineering from the University of Melbourne, and then a PhD in Physiology from the University of Cambridge, where he remained for over 30 years before returning to Australia in 2003 as a Federation Fellow. His research involves the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which retinal rod and cone photoreceptors respond to light, and, more recently, the evolution of these cells and of our eye. His 77 publications have received over 6000 citations. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2005, following his return to Australia. Despite taking early retirement in 2011, he actively continues his research.

Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However is also offers a background to the creationist debate as to whether the eye was designed or evolved. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other published investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of a university level particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is at an advanced comprehension level.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned and has multiply other articles on similar other topics, the article was also published in a world-renowned magazine which indicates that it is a reliable source

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles some published in a world-renowned magazine indicating they are reliable.

Source Nilsson. D, Pelger. S. 1994. ‘A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve’. Biological sciences, Vol. 256, No.1345. URL: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf

Author Dan-Erik Nilsson
Title A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve’
Publication 1994
Year
Publisher

Initial author appraisal
After finishing a postdoctoral position at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1984, I started my own lab at Lund University where I earlier got my PhD. In 1990 I recruited Eric Warrant, and the Lund Vision Group started to emerge. A few years later, I got the chair of Zoology at Lund University. Later recruitments were Almut Kelber and Ronald Kröger, who substantially added to the strength of the group. After yet further recruitments the Lund Vision group now has about 30 people, forming a cheerful and creative research environment. The expertise covers most aspects of visual ecology and eye evolution across the entire animal kingdom
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article was one of the first to publish about the time required for an eye to evolve however the article has been cited more recently which means that the statistics in the article are still relevant.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. Specifically the time required for it to evolve. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of a university level people who are interested in evolution and have a general knowledge of terms used in relation to evolution.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned scientist and has many other articles to his name on similar topics, including some when working with Trevor Lamb. The article has also been peer reviewed by other members of the ANU. This makes the article a reliable source.

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable for a university level person, it contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles, and has similar figures to that in the Evolution of the eye by Trevor Lamb a neuroscientist at Curtin University.

Source Nilsson. D, Pelger. S. 1994. ‘A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve’. Biological sciences, Vol. 256, No.1345. URL: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf

Author Susanna Pelger
Title A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve’
Publication 1994
Year
Publisher

Initial author appraisal
Scientist with a keen interest in language, communication and learning. Is a PhD in genetics, teacher of biology and mathematics and working with teaching research and development at Lund University.

Date of publication and edition/revision
The article was one of the first to publish about the time required for an eye to evolve however the article has been cited more recently which means that the statistics in the article are still relevant.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. Specifically the time required for it to evolve. The data and conclusions made in this article are supported by references from other investigations.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of a university level people who are interested in evolution and have a general knowledge of terms used in relation to evolution.

Objective reasoning
This author is a well renowned scientist and has many other articles to his name on similar topics, including some when working with Trevor Lamb. The article has also been peer reviewed by other members of the ANU. This makes the article a reliable source.

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable for a university level person, it contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles, and has similar figures to that in the Evolution of the eye by Trevor Lamb a neuroscientist at Curtin University.

Source Pitman. S. 2001. ‘the evolution of the human eye’. URL: http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#Gradations

Author Sean Pitman
Title How the vertebrate eye, as we know it, emerged over evolutionary time
Publication 2001
Year
Publisher

Initial author appraisal
Sean D. Pitman M.D. is an Intelligent Design apologist. He is also a medical doctor, a pathologist, with a subspecialty in hematology from the City of Hope under the world-renowned Dr. Lawrence Weiss. He has published several papers in his own specialty in various pathology journals. Of interest here, however, are Pitman's interests outside of pathology. He maintains a website favoring a somewhat novel take on intelligent design theory as the most likely origin of many aspects of living things in "recent" history (i.e., less than 10,000 years).Beyond this, Pitman claims that Evolution is a religion, as is atheism, the process of science in general, or any other philosophical position. He also claims that mainstream scientists are blind to evidence of a Designer when it comes to the likely origin of different "kinds" of living creatures. He believes that this "blindness" is generally unconscious and non deliberate.
Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. However it is aim is to discredit the theory of evolution.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of the general public particularly people who are interested in evolution. This makes the information specific to the evolution of the eye however the information is easy to comprehend.

Objective reasoning
The author has several other articles about evolution, it should be noted that even though the author doesn’t believe in evolution he understands the theory as well as many of the top scientist in the field. And cites many other articles in his own factual one.

Writing style
The text is specific to evolution of the eye however it is understandable and contains insights into the originating issues of evolution in general.

Evaluation and reviews
The information presented is reinforced by several other scientific articles which are referenced in the bibliography.

Source Shimeld. S. Slingsby. C. 2005. ‘Urochord ate gamma-crystallin and the evolution origin of the vertebrate eye lens.’ Current Biology. Vol. 15 pages 1684-1689. URL: http://www.current-biology.com
Author Sebastian Shimeld
Title Urochord ate gamma-crystallin and the evolution origin of the vertebrate eye lens
Publication 2005
Year
Publisher NCBI

Initial author appraisal
Research at the interface of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology has seen a major Renaissance in recent years, fuelled by the development of molecular methods applicable to a wide range of organisms and by the rapidly-expanding potential of comparative genomics and transcriptomics. Research in my laboratory is focused on understanding major transitions in animal evolution and the origins of animal morphological diversity. This includes studies at several levels of biological organisation, from anatomy, embryology and developmental biology to genes, genome organisation and molecular evolution. A principal aim is to determine how the evolution of genes their organisation and interactions underlies the evolution of new morphological features. Within this broad theme several different projects are currently underway in my laboratory involving a wide range of study organisms, from sponges, molluscs and worms to sea squirts, lampreys and dogfish. Please see the Research Projects link below for more details. I serve on the Editorial Board of Developmental Dynamics and Faculty of 1000, and am a member of various BBSRC committees. I am based in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford and am The Julian Huxley Fellow at Balliol College. Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. Particularly that of the evolution of the proteins that form the lens.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of university level particularly people who are interested in lens formation. This makes the information specific to only the eye.

Objective reasoning
This author also has numerous other titles on similar topics, which causes no speculation. The information presented in this report is supported by other investigations.

Writing style
The text is specific to the eye and has very specific terms used in this field however it contains insight into evolution in general as well as the current structures of the eye.

Evaluation and reviews
The article has been published on the scientific article site NCBI which has numerous other articles by the same author, the article has also been peer reviewed .
Source Shimeld. S. Slingsby. C. 2005. ‘Urochord ate gamma-crystallin and the evolution origin of the vertebrate eye lens.’ Current Biology. Vol. 15 pages 1684-1689. URL: http://www.current-biology.com
Author Sebastian Shimeld
Title Urochord ate gamma-crystallin and the evolution origin of the vertebrate eye lens
Publication 2005
Year
Publisher NCBI

Initial author appraisal
Professor of Structural Biology, Deputy Head of ResearchResearch Interests The origin of the vertebrate eye lens, Interactions of crystallins, refractive index and transparency. The structure of alpha-crystallin and related small heat shock proteins. Changes to eye lens crystallins in cataract. The role of small heat shock proteins in neuromuscular systems. Small heat shock proteins in aging and disease Date of publication and edition/revision
The article is reasonably recent in publication and contains facts from the year of publication.

Content analysis
This reports offers a detailed investigation into the evolution of the eye. Particularly that of the evolution of the proteins that form the lens.

Intended audiences
The author was targeting readers of university level particularly people who are interested in lens formation. This makes the information specific to only the eye.

Objective reasoning
This author also has numerous other titles on similar topics, which causes no speculation. The information presented in this report is supported by other investigations.

Writing style
The text is specific to the eye and has very specific terms used in this field however it contains insight into evolution in general as well as the current structures of the eye.

Evaluation and reviews
The article has been published on the scientific article site NCBI which has numerous other articles by the same author, the article has also been peer reviewed .