The blind watchmaker - 3/5

[aurelama1]

Your scientific excuse does not impress God; humble yourself before Him for He cares for you

[soreiks]

Chocolate rain has over 10mil views while this has only 6,399 views??? The world has issues...

[bpbusstop]

One question about evolution:

I understand natural selection, and why evolution is important for animals to adapt and survive. But how does the NEED to adapt change the DNA?

[broncofan92slay]

@bpbusstop i'm not a biologist but for what i know i think it works the otherway around i mean random mutations occur in the DNA and the individuals that are more adapt to the enviroment (the fittest) tend to survive thus having bigger chance to mate and spreading their genes to the next generation

[33SaintBernards]

looks like kirk cameron ;)

[jolarti]

Oohlala, Richard was quite handsome in those days.

[tintinlady]

I looooove Richard Dawkins!!! OMG!

[a01011399]

in the fossil record the oldest eyes are comlex eyes, simple eyes are younger (assiming that dating methods are accurate)therefore dawkins prediction is wrong

[hackenbollox]

What?!! This is even worse than your comment in the previous vid. You really need to go and look at the evidence properly. For a start, the fossile record doesn't contain much by way of eyes, for the simple reason that there is very little hard tissue in the eyes of most creatures. Therefore, not much to petrify. Epic fail.

Good vid.

[a01011399]

the oldest eyes belong to trilobytes, and they are complex (compound) eyes besides even the ´´primitive hypothetical eye´´ in the video is a complex sistem,

[hackenbollox]

don't talk wet. We are agreed, are we not, that eyes evolve through gene mutation and natural selection? At least, I assume so from your comment in the previous episode of this documentary. If that's the case, you simply can't say that the oldest eyes are complex. It flies in the face of all the evidence. Further, not all the evidence is in yet, totally aside from the fact that the fossil record can't ever be complete, due to the particular set of circumstances required for fossilisation.

[a01011399]

well then do not use the fossil record as evidence, and no the eye could have not evolve through natural selection, even the simple eye in the video can only function if many other organs appear at the same time. for example to detect lite, we most have a given type of skin and a conection to the brain ¿which evolved first?

[hackenbollox]

Simply not true. Your skin is actually sensitive to certain frequencies of light, which is why everybody feels better when the sun's shining. You absorb energy from sunlight, so there is already light sensing equipment in your skin. Further, each generation gives a greater advantage over the generation before in the fight for survival. The evidence that eyes evolve lies in the wide range of differeing eyes in the animal kingdom. You really need to do some research.

[a01011399]

ok and what would falsify the supposed evolution of the eye, aparatly the fossil record can not because it is incomplite and for some reason evolutionists feel free to feel the gaps acording to what evolutionary theory needs.

even simple eyes are complex in the sence that many organs work in simbiotic ways. so what would falsify the evolution of th eye?

[NsHatch]

A made by God sticker on the back of the eye.

But seriously, what would falsify creation?

[MetalguitarlessonsUK]

To falsify evolution all you would need to do is discover fossil bunnies in pre cambrian rock, a genetic mechanism that prohibits macro evolution, dinosaurs fossils along with hominid fossils, proof of super evolution (for a 6000 years old earth) or atavisms in animals not from a common ancestor and you have succesfully disproven evolution.

Your comments show a hideous lack of understanding on evolution yet you claim to know better than ALL of the worlds respected scientists.Religious whackjob

[joshualcoombe]

@hackenbollox

Skin is sensitive to radiation which is emitted with light. If you're going to make calls like that you should post your research. Otherwise people will pose questions like "Then why have only 2 eyes? Surely it would be benefitial to have them in the back of your head and if the skin there is already light sensitive why haven't they evolved like that in ANY species?"

[hackenbollox]

@joshualcoombe

Radiation which is emitted with light??? Light IS bloody radiation! Specifically it is radiation within a certain range of frequencies detectable by the eye.

As for the rest, such a question would assume that anything that gives an advantage would necessarily evolve, which is simply not the case. A cranium made of titanium would provide a survival advantage, especially since titanium is found in the body. Do you see the problem here?

[griffin3220789]

@hackenbollox

You have to remember that this was made in the 1980's. Our understanding of different things and how those different things work has improved immensely since then. What he is saying was fact a the time. However, this is a different time.

[hackenbollox]

@griffin3220789

No, it wasn't a fact then if it isn't a fact now. Facts are immutable. Our understanding of it may have changed, but what was true then is true now, and vice versa.

[a01011399]

1% of an eye is useless, you won´t see 1% of the objects with 1% of the eye this is why dawkins is wrong in his book,

[NsHatch]

But Dawkins never claimed that 1% of an eye could make out objects in any way, so you are wrong in your post. He said 1% of an eye can detect the difference between light and dark, so 1% of an eye is far better than no eye at all.

Over time. What started out as a means to sense light became more complex, gradually gaining a new role as a means to see ones environment.

[tintinlady]

a01011399: Now this is stupid! You sound science yet you dont know what your saying. You are a stupid trying to be a scientist only stupid. Eyes can work even if it is not perfectly constructed. Blurring and angular reflection deficiencies are evidence of some. Go to the corner and read the evolution of eyes. It is like you are talking with your eyes close. You are stupid, i hope your ears are working.

[SunriseSucks]

Dawkins looks really great

[raksta76]

Im 1st...very educational