I'm not here to argue anything, I am really perplexed by this. I understand how this slow and gradual reshaping of the eye can create better vision, but can anyone explain to me how to visual SYSTEM evolved. I am talking mainly about how the eye became elegantly connected to the brain with cranial nerves, autonomic nervous system, visual cortex, vestibular system and so on. If anyone has any good links that explains how a complex visual system can evolve from a primitive one I would appreciate.
Dear computer stimulator, if you wanna show how eye works, I got many other informative videos than this, and if you wanna show how eyes evolved based on your explanation, then the eyes, indeed, can't see.
What a freakishly, 'whimsical', tale of Willy Wonka's Guide to Evolution... I actually have more respect for crazy Tom Cruise . Wow just think, up to this point this guy has totally wasted his life... Choosing to see what he wants to see... I think the next step in evolution could be a lense that fits over our head... Like a condom... maybe it would make us really aerodynamic and allow us to fly.... after our wings grow... This is awe some science
I read few comments and the popular concept is the eyes evolved simultaneously with the optic nerves and visual cortex. Wow that seems far-fetched but ok, never mind. They are other associated components which are controlled by other parts of the brains such as stimulus to close the eyes when sneezing. Do you know that the eyes must be constantly wet otherwise it will be damaged? Tears and automatic blinking of eyelids do this, and muscles are required to open and close the eyelids.
@hisham031170 That's actually not what the scientific literature says at all. Provide citations to the literature you are referring to, please.
You guys really need to understand what the science says before you can begin critiquing it. People like me, who have some degree of formal education about these issues, don't appreciate you categorizing us all as whimsical quacks and liars when you don't even both reading the basic information we make readily availale to the public.
@seriussam101 Can you not see with an open mind? You accept evolution as a dogma which should not be challenged. Can you not understand the point I was making, and if you have any formal education and sanity at all like you claimed, you will understand that this man was talking based on pure imagination.
@seriussam101 What evidence did you want me to provide? Did you see, this man is a liar, he talked about the eyes but stayed away from discussing the thalamus, codes, optic nerves, and visual cortex. It's the brain that made the eyes see. Evolutionists said eyes are not irreducible complex, yet they won't really touch the subject of the parts associating with the eyes. My problem is with this man. I leave you to your protective bubble. Argument with a man like you is just wasting my time.
@hisham031170 1.) Provide the evidence I asked for - that scientists claim eyes evolved with the optic nerves and visual cortex we see in humans today. This is not what evolutionists believe. There are primitive eyes in many animals and microorganisms without the advanced anatomy you mention. 2.) According to Behe, irreducible complexity means a structure can't function with a single component removed. Eyes aren't IC, by definition, b/c there are many less complex eyes in the animal kingdom.
@seriussam101 3.) You have no idea whether I have engaged in this with in open mind. I have. And frankly, as someone who is making the claims you are making, it's clear that you haven't. 4.) There is a tremendous amount of scientific literature available on the questions you raise, which again, are not IC issues. Type "eye evolution" into Google scholar, and put the pieces together yourself.
@seriussam101 WTF??? Seriously? You are so brainwashed to believe that the argument successfully refute IC. Don't talk about Behe, just tell honestly, in human eyes, remove the optic nerves, can you see, if you still can see, that eyes are not IC. OK, remove other parts not directly associated with optic nerve or brains. Remove the tears and the automatic mechanism to blink the eyes. How long can the eyes stand without being damaged. You came with a dogma there's no point talking to you.
@hisham031170 5.) Lastly, the man is not a "liar" for not addressing arguments that are unrelated to the point he is trying to make. He demonstrates precisely what he sets out to demonstrate, and if you don't understand his point, you need to read more on mollusk eye evolution. The eye is not irreducibly complex because you can have functional "eyes" while removing the vast majority of human eye components.
Wow you made it all so easy. The wonders of computer simulation and imagination. If it's not able to focus, you put lenses, than you inject water, and then you said that's the work of natural selection. This is not science, imagination is not science. You failed to discuss the vision, because without the brain, no matter how developed the eyes, the eyes won't see. GOT IT? Why not talk about the optic nerves and the visual cortex at all? Are you dishonest?
All you fucktards saying the eye is perfect and infinitely complex, you're the reason noone takes creationism seriously.
Ever seen a camera? Of course the eye is imperfect and can be artificially replicated.
Read the bible, the big man himself says nothing is perfect in this world. This is the middleground between perfect Heaven and perfect Hell for a reason.
Imperfections exist in everything God created, to experience the good parts by contrasting them with an equilibrium.
There is a reason why his theory is still only a theory and not a hypothesis even among the scientific community, it hasn't been through any falsifying real life test. It fails to explain the several specialized light sensitive proteins needed simulatiously to achieve vision. He neglected to state that the brain would have to evolve simulatiously to interpret the new sensory information. Thanks to the religion of modern science there is enough 'scientic faith' to fill the gaps of his model.
@versacedotcom Sorry I meant to type 'simultaneously'! Light sensitive proteins would have had to simultaneously evolve to achieve vision because they are so integrated. With even 1 missing sight is not possible. The brain and the optic connectors attached are equally important to a discussion of sight. Because sight is wrapped up in how the brain interprets the information. The brain cannot interpret info without a channel to transport it (an optic nervous system).
Awesome video. I've been wondering about the eye and similarly complex products of evolution for a while. The science is so awesome and so interesting that it's a shame that we have to be distracted by ridiculous arguments about designers and such. I mean, people can believe what they want, and I don't want to insult anybody, but this video doesn't have anything to do with God. It's for those of us who want to understand the answers to difficult questions instead of inventing them.
Ha ha; you pagans are ridiculous; I'm glad you have find a place where the Great Designer of all things has already put something together, to show you that there are different intelligent designs. However, in general, the eye for all animals and humans is alike. Something that evolution could not have come up with for all the different species, unless it was designed. A common design. Don't you think?
Really; so you don't like your eyes? They're imperfect? How would you design it then? And if you design it, wouldn't that prove you need a designer? Why can't evolution create something perfect then?
Why can't evolution come up with something perfect? Good question. Does it matter though? Evolution doesn't have to come up with perfect designs. It has already come up with better designs than humans have come up with on many occasions, both in nature and in simulation.
Evolution has even come up with better eyes than our own. Octopi have them. Their eyes have no blind spot or veins and arteries running over the retina.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is all BS. Evolution is garbage. It does not explain how or why it just says it then it makes this or did that. According to evolution the eye could have been developed on the butt or the back of the head.Evolution is nonsense.
@ygrecco Yes there is a good reason for the eyes being where they are and it was not accidental. You contend some unthinking process placed the eyes there. That makes about as much sense as thinking the tooth fairy exists.
@oldlite you clearly don't understand evolution. do you really think natural selection would favour an animal with eyes on its back? of course not, evolution is also the reason eyes are on our head.
@oldlite yu r a farkin idiot.did u even watch the vid properly?it does not xplain how? n y? since yu hav hearin probz let me xplain it to yu in brief, million yrs ago species had only light detecting cells then they developed into cup shape over many generations 2 concentrate light over more generations thos cup develped tiny hole, then tranparent film n over mare n more gen it got more n more complex to produce signals to brain to generate picture. frm light decting cells to human i :evolution
@chinamanspeakenlis ...lol... you type like an uneducated chinaman. Hey Kong Fu Manchu Did you know rich chinese eat human fetuses. Only the rich can afford to make baby stew in China. So don't talk to me about who is an idiot. Yes I think you came from a couple of horny Komodo dragons. may be something to this evolution stuff after all. Go eat a noodle.
@oldlite i'm amazed that your best response to chinamanspeakenlis comment is an insult that's a lie. by the way, your line about a komodo dragon giving birth to a human shows you don't understand evolution.
@DjDedan Matter in motion toward randomness is an expression of the idea of entropy, an idea often called "the second law of thermodynamics."
In genetics, this tendency toward randomness is seen in the human genome. No example has been brought forth document where a known genetic improvement has occurred in the human species. In general it can be said that all known genetic changes have been harmful. These harmful changes are spreading across humanity making the collective human genome weaker.
Many people confound theory and hypothesis. An hypotesis is not proven by definition, while a theory can both be unproven and a scientific fact at the same time. Nobody says that Newton gravitation theory "is just a theory"...
The theory that organisms improve themselves by adapting more complex cell structure and function is still theory, however well reasoned and illustrated. the kinds of improved complexity this scientist speculates about have never ever been actually seen in any organism. All matter moves toward randomness, not complexity.
@apprentice2him can you give me the source for the concept that "all matter moves toward randomness"... and i'm not sure that complexity and randomness are mutually exclusive... and i'm not really sure how either statement relates to evolution but i am curious about your statement so please elucidate...
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 Monistic scientism postulates a universe in which the only reality is physical reality. Dualism postulates a universe with two natures, physical and spiritual, and values science that brings reality to light. The dualist enjoys the beauty, the inquiry, the discovery, the understanding of the physical for many of the same reasons as the monist. The difference is the monist takes personal pride for his discovery. The dualist derives a great joy in recognition of the Cause.
Eyes is the hardware only (is complex enough), how it nerves connect to the brain and how can brain understand the signals? Polydactyly (six fingers) show us the case, the extra finger is not functional!
How its' brain understand how to control the focus when the eye is evolute?
No. But it shows the evolution cannot explain how eye is evolved, and it is impossible for complex system evolve, since functional organs must be evolved in a way they works together in one generation. One of the examples is the circulatory system.
This is all very plausible until it gets to the lens. We go from an indentation lined with photosensitive structures to one with an unexplained bilayer that, through some inheritable process, erroneously fills itself with fluid.
Furthermore, this downplays other features of the human eye, such as the needed transition from cells that can simply detect light to ones that are sensitive to different wavelengths of light, as well as the internalization and ability to control our "pinhole" (iris).
This entire video is a bad explanation for evolution. It simply doesnt prove how life originated. And it definitely doesnt prove the theory of evolution.
@Nashhinton Well... the thing is this video has not the intent to prove anything. It just shows a model of what we observe in nature proposing a reasonable explanation for how the eye could evolve. Its just it, a model.
I believe in natural selection as far as it doesnt get too carried away. Speciation is observable. Evolutionists must honestly think creationists are really stupid. No... I'm a smart guy.
@gupsphoo, Yet the explanation is dealing with natural selection (which is a provable observation within real evolution). The only thing I disagree with in evolution is speciation that transcends the certain taxonomical groupings such as the genus-- but rarely the family. In certain primitive animals, speciation does transcend the family. But, when you appraoch complex forms, that speciation is limited. Also, there is no proof for abiogenesis and primordial soup. If there is proof, give me some
@Nashhinton Evolution does not deal with origin of life. If just postulae that since there is life, it is under enviromental pressure and competition, therefore it changes or die.
@ygrecco, Right. Natural selection... Do you know any subtheories within the entire theory of evolution? Evolution actually means gradual change, by the way
@Nashhinton Actualy I do know several mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection. Unfortunaly I do not master english lenguage to expose it here. I teach Evolution on university.
@illustratos, LOL!!! Wow! Look who's talking! You definitely forgot to add several punctuation marks in your own comment! You forgot several commas and the one colon to begin your entire list. I believe your the "Fucktard"! LOL!
But he MADE that artificial eye by himself, which proves a designer! The 1st question in this video was something like, how long it would take for natural selection to make an eye.... Well he never answered that question, simply because he designed the eye! He never gave proof on how the eye is not irreducibly complex, which makes this video even dumber. To me, this video just proves God! Chance cant create an eye.
@Nashhinton Watch the video again, and listen very carefully to the explanation. If you still don't get it, you're destined to be an ignorant Creationist for life.
To be honest, the university researcher did his best, for his research project. However, let's be honest, the gaps between a cell (which we assume already exists and it's capable) that detects light (how did this come about?), and all the wiring that takes place between the eye and the brain, ***and**** the fact that the brain is capable of interpret as well, **and** send neural messages to the other parts for storage purposes, is simply not feasible random process. It's a design. Nice try!
whats even more amazing amazing amazing is that along with these photo cells (that just happened to be there to start with - that was real lucky), was that the optic nerve with over 153million connections to the 1 sq inch at the back of the eye evolved too, as well as the connection to the brain, as well as the method to interpret the image, as well as the mechanism to send signals to other parts of the brain to engage fight or flight responses - WOW! With no guiding force or agent -LUCKY huh!
As an 'eye patient' who has had 3 operations on my right eye in the past few weeks, talked to many patients, and eye doctors, believe me when I say that the eye is far from perfect!! 100's of thousands of people each year have, like me, retinal tears and detachments, cataracts, glaucoma etc. The hospital I attended sees 300 000 outpatients each year, for example. The eye is poorly 'wired' as you know, thus causing a blind spot. VERY simple rewiring would have eliminated this. Poor design.
@oopscanada Well, if the best your omniscient God can do is come up with a jerry-rigged eye that has numerous design flaws, he must be a shitty deity. I can just see it in a bible verse now: "And on the sixth day, God said, 'Damn, these eye-contraptions are kinda tricky. Let's see, if I cross this nerve here, put the muscle here.... there, perfect!'. Then Adam replied, 'Uh, God? I have a blind spot right here.' The Almighty said, 'Damn, I thought I'd fixed that. Oh well, it's good enough.'"
This doesnt prove anything. No amount of selective breeding or genetic manipulation could add the genetic information needed for the eye, or any other organ for that manner.You know evolution is completely dependant on a primary manipulation of DNA. This would need to answer the question "How did the DNA information make its way into the organism, in order for it to even start to develop eyes?" Not simply make a model to how it was formed, it doesnt even answer the most basic of questions.
@Millipedecult as an evolutionary biology major its hard for me to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. you only get by with this claim only by leaving the term "genetic information" undefined and vague. by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve
How is that any different than the absurd assumption made by theologies that an invisible sky daddy made everything the way it is today. Explaining away things with "god did it" is why Americans today are self involved and have no interest in discovery or exploration. Why figure things out when it's easier to just say "god did it"? You've squandered the amazing brain that your ancient ancestors/cousins strived to keep alive just to deny their relation. You should be ashamed.
@Schizima Our ancient ancestors had 2 eyes, 1 eye on each side, so that they could see both on the left, and right. ever since then 2 eyes on a mammal was beneficial enough. 1 eye less would make it easy prey. 1 eye more just didn't happen.
don't get me wrong it is simple to see adaptation and natural selection, I just don't believe all life started from slime on a rock, or slime in the ocean. I don't believe we move from slime to the divine. I don't believe in progress to higher levels of existence through evolution.
evolution is self defeated in that the theory can't stand if it is true because the theory itself is do to evolution. Therefore it is in the process of evolving and since we are only a step in evolution any theory we create must be false for a new one must constantly evolve out of the older less perfect theory, as supposedly new humans will evolve out of us.
@Thomas60 No doubt they are two different things, but this does not explain away the Law of biogenesis, or any of the other problematic aspects of of the origin. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. . Mathematicians consider events in nature with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.
How'd the vertebrate's "inverted" retina develop? How would this have become "fixed" in a population, when without the concurrent development of Müller cells, which are similar to fiber-optics, to allow transmission of light through the retina layers to reach the photocells? Without these, the inverted retina is useless and deadly...and Müller cells in an everted retina are again, useless and deadly. So which came first?
Of course I understand evolution which is just adaptation, giving really simple explanations for incredibly complicatated processes leaving out extremely important information which devalues what they are saying. Then the slow minded look at that information and think "oh yeah that makes sense" without questioning all the parts that have been left absent. Explain the mass proliferation of different species over a short time after mass extinction events through evolution?
@ygrecco Oh you think I believe some entity spirited everything here, thats pure nonsense. Evolutionists are seeing adaptation which occurs at every level, I see no evidence of one species of any form evolving into another. At the microscopic level where viruses adapt at super rates the flu virus is still the flu virus after thousands of years. Theres something missing that causes the arise of new species, Ive studied evolution but dismissed it because of reasons too many to mention here.
@ygrecco People watch this video and forget that an eye isnt just an eye its also the optic center of the brain which would also have to change after each step to make sense of the information. Without that change no natural advantage occurs I dont see him mentioning how that comes about.
@ygrecco I'm not. I'm stating facts that refute evolution and no evolutionist has counter argumented with solid evidence. Evolution is called a theory for a reason and all theorys lack one thing. Can you tell me what that thing is? Just because I say evolution doesnt have all the answers doesnt make me this Behe guy. just a guy with questions, So I'm a Behe therefore your a sheep.
@ygrecco Not necessarily. The brain automatically wires anything new. But it doesn't necessarily understand it. The human brain is unique in its ability to consciously know training improves something, as opposed to animals which simply use what they have, or slightly more intelligent animals like crows and apes, which make tools to help develop.
Also you must sill define the alteration to the constructor proteins that successfully produces form. That dude had factory made parts.
@Gormanmod Yes I understand the brain can be very adaptive, Ive seen experiments showing if you wear goggles which portray the world has upside down after a few days the brain will turn the image the right way up. That said things like colour which the brain can switch the colour processor off in traumatic situations where the data isnt needed to save your life is a problem for evolution. did the colour receptive cells or the colour processor evolve first?
@mykill100 Well the chances are that a cell evolved that could perceive color, but the extra data was unimportant. At some point the brain understood the data and began to develop it into usable data, just making more space.
Remember, the brain can chose what to turn off, convert, or turn on. That goes into begging many more questions, such as just how powerful IS the brain, and is it just lazy by default. You have to train it?
It's still a real bitch to explain how the eye and the brain would co-evolve. The only way I can see it happening is if they both started out as part of the same tissue and then separated, but still, nobody can describe those steps in any detail.
@elaine02270 You obviously dont understand how evolution is suppose to work. Any mutation must offer an advantage over other of the same species. Its called natural selection. If the mutation to the eye has no corresponding part in the visual cortex to understand the new imformation how can it be picked via natural selection. Both mutations would have to happen together or the cortex mutation within one life cycle. Theres many flaws to this theory if people want to ignore them its up to them.
@derrick713 No, you dont understand what the brain cant do, many mutations appear causing the growth of limbs and eyes in different places yet they are all useless, You cant just add bits to a body and expect the brain to be able to use them. What came first the colour sensitive cell or the brains ability to process colour?
@mykill100 what came first the chicken or the egg argument shows only what your brain cannot do which is to have a rational thought. mutations that cause deformities have no advantage that would make the deformity "normal" . a simple mutation that gives you the ability to walk upright or use your hand to grasp tools better or give you the ability to run. early man had all those abilities and had a much smaller brain and you can relate to that
@derrick713 These mutatations are very specific and random, if the brain doesnt have the ability to process the new imformation I cant see how it can be picked via natural selection. The mutations you mentioned dont require added brain power. You cant graft human eyes onto a flat worm and expect it to have spatial awareness and colour vision. The problem lies in why natural selection would come into effect for a mutation the brain is unable to utilize.
@mykill100 That's because he was talking about the eye not about the neural connections. Just like a TV chef might not go into where the food comes from or where it ends up when he's creating a dish.
I would suggest looking at the whole programme and doing some serious 'off youtube' research on the subject.
@ygrecco Don't bother. It's the typical attitude. "Oh, ok this works.. But what about this! There's no obvious answer! HAHA! It's flawed!" And so on forever and ever...
@mykill100 easy. evolution is allabout trade offs. this is why mass extictions happen. creatures evolve more complex and specialasied to their enviorment witch means that they loose other paths to take. if enviorment changes the animals that have led to evolutionary death end die out, while the most generalised creatures survive and start to specialaise again. this is how it works my friend. this is why mass extictions happen.
They always say that nature would favour certain changes without any evidence how would nature favour 4 light sensitive cells over 2? Evolution shows adaptation at best but not how one species can become another. We are missing something important, how did this amazing code we call DNA come about or the many microscopic machines that work inside a cell decoding that DNA. Evolution is problomatic and its time scientists admitted the truth. We just dont know.
Being able to detect light from more than one direction requires more cells. A new species forming is caused by those small adaptations stacked up over a very long time. How DNA originated is explained through abiogenesis. Look it up.
@kalbahamut What a stupid thing to say, all this is being projected on the population are you saying we cant reply. Evolution shows diversity within species, if you have one shred of factual evidence that its involved in the diversity of species put it forward or shut your arrogant mouth
@mykill100 what the heck are you talking about? I'm saying if you don't understand something it doesn't mean that the rest of us don't. The video makes sense, so does evolution.
@kalbahamut This is what I'm talking about. The video makes about has much sense has you do. If you cant see the glaring inconsistancies staring you in the face it says about has much as I need to know about you. Ive given several examples of why the video doesnt make sense youve given none to counter those facts other than come on and shout rah rah the video makes sense to you. I should it imagine it does, not that any of the thinking is your own.
@mykill100 your whole argument is that you don't understand it. We get that. Everybody can see that you don't understand it, and everyone knows why. Stop announcing to the world that you are a simpleton. It's embarrassing.
@kalbahamut OK I'm the simpleton yet you havent produced one piece of fact or evidence to this discussion. I dont need to defend myself, people only have to read your comments. Maybe you should read them yourself sometime and realise your saying nothing. Sit and think about clever you think you are, your the only one doing it.
@mykill100 I haven't produced one piece of evidence? It's not my job to do so. The evidence is there if you look for it. Pick up a scientific journal sometime. Open a biology text book. I'm not your secretary and won't cut & paste for you because you're too lazy to look yourself. The reason you don't understand evolution is 1 of 2 things. a) you're willfully ignorant. Biased. Only getting info from or trusting partisan sources. or b) you're too stupid to grasp even simple concepts of biology.
@kalbahamut WOW! it took you so long to write that out. I have a perfect understanding of evolution but I can see the flaws. If your not here to join in the discussion, what is your purpose? Oh thats it to try and shout down those who dont agree with what you think. Go away you fool. I understand your embarrassment now.
@mykill100 I'm not shouting and you're the one that's embarrassing yourself, you pathetic mental midget. YOU are the fricking monumental idiot who built your entire argument around "evolution doesn't make sense." MY response was simply speak for yourself... if you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple theory, then shut the fuck up. The rest of us aren't quite as dumb as you are, so why should we hold ourselves back because YOU don't understand. Consider Quantum Physics. continued...
Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics are extremely complex and much more difficult to understand than the relatively simple and elegant theory that the variety of species on Earth arose through natural selection. If, say, some dumbfuck like yourself, or if a million dumbfucks like yourself, don't understand Quantum Mechanics, should we shelve all theories related to it? Should we stop research into this area? Should we start teaching Intelligent Design Mechanics instead?
No, of course we shouldn't. And nobody is going to propose that we do for the simple fact that theories in these much more complex and difficult to understand areas of science are not a threat to anyone's stupid asinine primitive small-minded dumbfuck religious ideas. That's the only reason mental degenerates like yourself ever try to make an argument out of this, because you would start crying if Jesus lied to you and Noah didn't save all the animals on a boat like you learned in Sunday School.
@kalbahamut ooooh your really getting upset now, I'm no creationist so thats something else your wrong about not that youve been right about anything. Youve obviously not even read the comments on this page. Are you now proffessing to be quantum machanics expert too now. You make me laugh, keep sending your BS the more it comes the more I post it on real discussion sites because we're having such a laugh about you right now. Your todays entertainment :)
you're an ID proponent? haha. Moron. You're the one who has publicly admitted to being so stupid he can't understand a simple theory, and the one that first resorted to insults because your "arguments" were completely pathetic, and now on top of everything you are lying about your beliefs to try and enhance your own credibility, which is ridiculous. Who is the "we" in your statement? Did you develop multiple personalities as a coping mechanism for when the priest was making you suck his dick?
@kalbahamut Something else whats really funny the way you keep reffering to yourself in the third person. Who is "we". I just had it pointed out I missed that one. Or do you presume to be speaking for everyone. Who do you think you are? sat there with a god complex, get help mate or cut down on the drugs.
@mykill100 The "we" I'm referring to is everyone in the world who is not a colossal knuckle-dragging invisible-man worshiping idiot.
You are also using "we" and not explaining who it is but I already guessed it's you and the multiple personalities your obviously deluded mind has concocted to help you cope with reality. Or your Bible study group standing behind you and cheering you on as you "stick it" to those darn Satanic science-types. =D oh boy...
@kalbahamut Ive used the word We're for the other people I'm in discussion with. Your speaking for the entire world apparently. Arnt you a little busy with all those quantum mechanics equations to keep coming back to make a bigger fool of yourself and it is yourself, the people your on about are "they" to you. You should only use I when relating to the fool. Your boring me now, you keep repeating the same BS. I know you believe the world revolves around you, but it really doesnt. keep happy now.
who do you imagine is on your side of this argument? You're trying to out smack-talk five or six different people at once, all of whom are obviously smarter than you, yet you feel like you are somehow in the intellectual majority. Talk about God complex. If there ever was a good proof for God, though, (and I'll spoil and tell you right now there's not) then it might be that given the difference in intellect between you (miniscule) and me, there might conceivably be something as advanced as God.
@mykill100 btw, "we" is not the 3rd-person, jackass. Apparently you fail in English grammar just as bad (well, maybe not quite as bad) as you fail in science. Idiot. Dolt. Simpleton. Go back to church.
@kalbahamut Who are the 6 people, I commented on a god guy who called every one Smucks who didnt believe in god, "We" is in the third person look it up, its either refering to yourself by name or has "we" has in the royal "we" so your wrong yet again. For another one I'm athiest and always have been. Get at least one thing right. You are funny though, some of your metaphores are amusing but like I said its getting boring. Youve proved you cant converse and thats about it.
@mykill100 uh... no... we is the first person plural. jesus you're stupid. YOU look it up. And you are not an atheist. You're only saying that you are so that you can lend some hint of credibility to your completely asinine positions. I know the drill. I used to read the same idiotic Creationist literature that you do. Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham. etc. I know where you're getting your "ideas" from and I know about the ploy to try and confuse people into thinking ID is not religion
@kalbahamut "I" is the first person, "you" is the second person the third person is stating yourself has others, Narcistic people do it because there never to blame for anything. Does that ring a bell. If you took the time to read my posts all the questions are valid and I dont make statements like this is the way it is because Evolution doesnt have all the answers and I dont pretend to either thats why I ask questions. ID brings more questions than it answers. I dont read any creationist lit.
this is truly amazing. Apparently you Creationist morons have the same approach to every argument. I mean, on the one hand, if you wanted to actually exert a *little* bit of effort and stop being so ignorant and lazy, you could actually research Evolutionary Biology and find answers to all your asinine questions that you raise about it. I guess the same thing applies for grammar. If you took 2 seconds to look it up, you would see that I am absolutely right that "we" is ALWAYS first person.
@kalbahamut just because I question Evolution doesnt make me a creationist. But you dont understand that. Everytime an hole is found in the theory they fill it with a new type of evolution like "rapid evolution" My beliefs are we dont know the whole story yet and may never in my lifetime. i could point to videos like the one on human genome 2 that the scientist unwittingly refutes evolution to prove evolution which doesnt wear with me.
@mykill100 you're pulling the wool over our eyes. Our meaning everyone on the internet which is the audience when you make posts on YouTube, jackass. Of course you say you are not a Creationist. That's what they all say. And now you say that ID raises more questions than it answers but five hours ago you even used the word Designer. You dorks know that you have no argument, and believe that by trying, in vain, to find any weakness in evolution you have somehow prevailed.
@mykill100 If I believed even for one second that you were actually a legitimate skeptic and not some fundie freak we would be in 100% agreement. Not because Evolution is a weak theory (it's not, the evidence is overwhelming in spite of whatever "holes" there may or may not be) but because I believe all things should be questioned. As long as those questions are made honestly and without ulterior motives or agendas.
@kalbahamut Ive come to the conclusion your actually insane, My main interests are IT and Art and I question everything. This delusion that people are creationists hiding has skeptics is rather strange, Ive studied some religions and rejected them with Hinduism probably the closest which says we are all one entity split into millions of parts by time. But has for some guy in the sky who created all this is just has delusional has your opinions. We,Us,Them all third person. I, Me, first person
@mykill100 Jesus fuck you are stupid... sigh... this can't be legitimate. You must be a troll. I think I finally figured it out. And... I have to admit... you got me. So, congrats. I actually thought you were serious up until this last post.
Anyway, given your grasp of the English language, and science, I'm not too worried about your assessment of my mental health. Or your assessment of anything, for that matter. I'm serious, take two seconds and type in "grammatical person" and see.
@kalbahamut Plus its not the amount of evidence for evolution that concerns me its the very obvious contradictions, I know evolution is the cause of diversity within species but the origin and diversity of species is another matter. Like I said I dont have all the answers niether do the books which I read constantly. I have my own opinions none of them include god or gods but know by examining scientific experiments that propergation isnt the only way information can be exchanged.
Having one light receptive cell would give the same information has a hundred, it would only be able to tell if there was light or not. Any other adaptation would require a change in the creatures brain to allow for spacial awareness. This video fails at the begining. having more light receptive cells would not be an advantage without something to process said information. Its nonsense. I could pick evolution apart a million ways and the fact of this, is up to yet I dont know how it happened.
Ive also read on how DNA may have possibly evolved but that is also a theory and is filled with massive amounts of supposition strangely it can not be repeated in a laboratory. Niether is there ever been a case of one animal giving birth to another species, birds come in millions of forms through adaptation but they are all still birds.
How comes flatworms (very old creatures in terms of earth history) didn't need a better eye? If this theory of eye evolution were true, they would have benefited from even a slightly better eye as other animals did.
Is it true, that the existence of flatworms today demonstrates that this theory is just wrong?
These steps in evolution are said to be beneficial. So even a bit better eye would be beneficial for even a flatworm. So it should have a better eye, because it had millions of years to develop whatever is beneficial for it, right? We should not see primitive eyes today, unless it is relatively a new development, as far as I am concerned.
No we should see no EXCLUSIVELY primitive eyes. Just because something is primitive, doesn't mean it isn't effective given limited applications. If a flat worms life is confined to a very simple set of processes, then simple eyes work fine. But flat worms have also evolved and have cousins with more complex eyes, from other worms all the way to us. A good analogy are tools. Just because a carpenter has screw guns and power drills doesn't mean a hand screwdriver is never useful.
You guy's are forgetting a key factor. When someone says god is outside of nature he cannot be compatible with science because that is defying science on it's own.
Even Einstein, who was not a religious person, himself never declared himself to be atheist. "Religion without Science is lame, Science without religion is blind".
Maybe all you geniuses, including King Dawkins, who is your Supreme Ruler, are smarter than Einstein, and many minds including Da Vinci, Franklin and Lincoln who firmly believed in G-d?
I'm not here to argue anything, I am really perplexed by this. I understand how this slow and gradual reshaping of the eye can create better vision, but can anyone explain to me how to visual SYSTEM evolved. I am talking mainly about how the eye became elegantly connected to the brain with cranial nerves, autonomic nervous system, visual cortex, vestibular system and so on. If anyone has any good links that explains how a complex visual system can evolve from a primitive one I would appreciate.
grperez 4 weeks ago
Dear computer stimulator, if you wanna show how eye works, I got many other informative videos than this, and if you wanna show how eyes evolved based on your explanation, then the eyes, indeed, can't see.
archilles1195 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
imagination......it amazing isn't it.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
""Sweden, that fucking atheists state"" kidding.
Great video.
gulbirk 4 months ago
Even before i start reading the comments
I expected that many of you are fighting over Evolution.
I thought these days all the people already accepted the Evolution
that's more believable than being send to earth out of no where or perhaps what you call "HEAVEN"
at least for me...
F4rl30d 5 months ago
What a freakishly, 'whimsical', tale of Willy Wonka's Guide to Evolution... I actually have more respect for crazy Tom Cruise . Wow just think, up to this point this guy has totally wasted his life... Choosing to see what he wants to see... I think the next step in evolution could be a lense that fits over our head... Like a condom... maybe it would make us really aerodynamic and allow us to fly.... after our wings grow... This is awe some science
RayHurl 6 months ago
I read few comments and the popular concept is the eyes evolved simultaneously with the optic nerves and visual cortex. Wow that seems far-fetched but ok, never mind. They are other associated components which are controlled by other parts of the brains such as stimulus to close the eyes when sneezing. Do you know that the eyes must be constantly wet otherwise it will be damaged? Tears and automatic blinking of eyelids do this, and muscles are required to open and close the eyelids.
hisham031170 6 months ago
@hisham031170 That's actually not what the scientific literature says at all. Provide citations to the literature you are referring to, please.
You guys really need to understand what the science says before you can begin critiquing it. People like me, who have some degree of formal education about these issues, don't appreciate you categorizing us all as whimsical quacks and liars when you don't even both reading the basic information we make readily availale to the public.
seriussam101 6 months ago
@seriussam101 Can you not see with an open mind? You accept evolution as a dogma which should not be challenged. Can you not understand the point I was making, and if you have any formal education and sanity at all like you claimed, you will understand that this man was talking based on pure imagination.
hisham031170 6 months ago
@hisham031170 The claim you made is wrong, which is why you won't provide the evidence I asked for.
seriussam101 6 months ago
@seriussam101 What evidence did you want me to provide? Did you see, this man is a liar, he talked about the eyes but stayed away from discussing the thalamus, codes, optic nerves, and visual cortex. It's the brain that made the eyes see. Evolutionists said eyes are not irreducible complex, yet they won't really touch the subject of the parts associating with the eyes. My problem is with this man. I leave you to your protective bubble. Argument with a man like you is just wasting my time.
hisham031170 6 months ago
@hisham031170 1.) Provide the evidence I asked for - that scientists claim eyes evolved with the optic nerves and visual cortex we see in humans today. This is not what evolutionists believe. There are primitive eyes in many animals and microorganisms without the advanced anatomy you mention. 2.) According to Behe, irreducible complexity means a structure can't function with a single component removed. Eyes aren't IC, by definition, b/c there are many less complex eyes in the animal kingdom.
seriussam101 6 months ago
@seriussam101 3.) You have no idea whether I have engaged in this with in open mind. I have. And frankly, as someone who is making the claims you are making, it's clear that you haven't. 4.) There is a tremendous amount of scientific literature available on the questions you raise, which again, are not IC issues. Type "eye evolution" into Google scholar, and put the pieces together yourself.
seriussam101 6 months ago
@seriussam101 WTF??? Seriously? You are so brainwashed to believe that the argument successfully refute IC. Don't talk about Behe, just tell honestly, in human eyes, remove the optic nerves, can you see, if you still can see, that eyes are not IC. OK, remove other parts not directly associated with optic nerve or brains. Remove the tears and the automatic mechanism to blink the eyes. How long can the eyes stand without being damaged. You came with a dogma there's no point talking to you.
hisham031170 6 months ago
@hisham031170
tears,eyelids and blinking evolved after our ancestor left the water .
zoltan6561 4 months ago
@zoltan6561 LOL
archilles1195 4 months ago
@hisham031170 5.) Lastly, the man is not a "liar" for not addressing arguments that are unrelated to the point he is trying to make. He demonstrates precisely what he sets out to demonstrate, and if you don't understand his point, you need to read more on mollusk eye evolution. The eye is not irreducibly complex because you can have functional "eyes" while removing the vast majority of human eye components.
seriussam101 6 months ago
Comment removed
hisham031170 6 months ago
Wow you made it all so easy. The wonders of computer simulation and imagination. If it's not able to focus, you put lenses, than you inject water, and then you said that's the work of natural selection. This is not science, imagination is not science. You failed to discuss the vision, because without the brain, no matter how developed the eyes, the eyes won't see. GOT IT? Why not talk about the optic nerves and the visual cortex at all? Are you dishonest?
hisham031170 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All you fucktards saying the eye is perfect and infinitely complex, you're the reason noone takes creationism seriously.
Ever seen a camera? Of course the eye is imperfect and can be artificially replicated.
Read the bible, the big man himself says nothing is perfect in this world. This is the middleground between perfect Heaven and perfect Hell for a reason.
Imperfections exist in everything God created, to experience the good parts by contrasting them with an equilibrium.
tinyurl .com /gthesis
chrismrulz 7 months ago
There is a reason why his theory is still only a theory and not a hypothesis even among the scientific community, it hasn't been through any falsifying real life test. It fails to explain the several specialized light sensitive proteins needed simulatiously to achieve vision. He neglected to state that the brain would have to evolve simulatiously to interpret the new sensory information. Thanks to the religion of modern science there is enough 'scientic faith' to fill the gaps of his model.
versacedotcom 7 months ago
@versacedotcom Sorry I meant to type 'simultaneously'! Light sensitive proteins would have had to simultaneously evolve to achieve vision because they are so integrated. With even 1 missing sight is not possible. The brain and the optic connectors attached are equally important to a discussion of sight. Because sight is wrapped up in how the brain interprets the information. The brain cannot interpret info without a channel to transport it (an optic nervous system).
versacedotcom 7 months ago
@versacedotcom Does natural selection explain the simultaneously evolultion of individual systems to achieve 1 complete system?
versacedotcom 7 months ago
@versacedotcom Yes.
1symbiosis 6 months ago
Awesome video. I've been wondering about the eye and similarly complex products of evolution for a while. The science is so awesome and so interesting that it's a shame that we have to be distracted by ridiculous arguments about designers and such. I mean, people can believe what they want, and I don't want to insult anybody, but this video doesn't have anything to do with God. It's for those of us who want to understand the answers to difficult questions instead of inventing them.
adamla11 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree
Ha ha; you pagans are ridiculous; I'm glad you have find a place where the Great Designer of all things has already put something together, to show you that there are different intelligent designs. However, in general, the eye for all animals and humans is alike. Something that evolution could not have come up with for all the different species, unless it was designed. A common design. Don't you think?
oopscanada 8 months ago
Really; so you don't like your eyes? They're imperfect? How would you design it then? And if you design it, wouldn't that prove you need a designer? Why can't evolution create something perfect then?
oopscanada 8 months ago
@oopscanada
Why can't evolution come up with something perfect? Good question. Does it matter though? Evolution doesn't have to come up with perfect designs. It has already come up with better designs than humans have come up with on many occasions, both in nature and in simulation.
Evolution has even come up with better eyes than our own. Octopi have them. Their eyes have no blind spot or veins and arteries running over the retina.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is all BS. Evolution is garbage. It does not explain how or why it just says it then it makes this or did that. According to evolution the eye could have been developed on the butt or the back of the head.Evolution is nonsense.
oldlite 8 months ago
@oldlite you should read more, not just the bible. Theere is a good reason for the position of the eyes.
ygrecco 8 months ago 13
@ygrecco Yes there is a good reason for the eyes being where they are and it was not accidental. You contend some unthinking process placed the eyes there. That makes about as much sense as thinking the tooth fairy exists.
oldlite 7 months ago
@oldlite Actually science does explain how, and why is irrelevant.
kailabreece 7 months ago
@oldlite you clearly don't understand evolution. do you really think natural selection would favour an animal with eyes on its back? of course not, evolution is also the reason eyes are on our head.
Mr12345EGGNOG 7 months ago
@oldlite yu r a farkin idiot.did u even watch the vid properly?it does not xplain how? n y? since yu hav hearin probz let me xplain it to yu in brief, million yrs ago species had only light detecting cells then they developed into cup shape over many generations 2 concentrate light over more generations thos cup develped tiny hole, then tranparent film n over mare n more gen it got more n more complex to produce signals to brain to generate picture. frm light decting cells to human i :evolution
chinamanspeakenlis 7 months ago
@chinamanspeakenlis ...lol... you type like an uneducated chinaman. Hey Kong Fu Manchu Did you know rich chinese eat human fetuses. Only the rich can afford to make baby stew in China. So don't talk to me about who is an idiot. Yes I think you came from a couple of horny Komodo dragons. may be something to this evolution stuff after all. Go eat a noodle.
oldlite 7 months ago
@oldlite i'm amazed that your best response to chinamanspeakenlis comment is an insult that's a lie. by the way, your line about a komodo dragon giving birth to a human shows you don't understand evolution.
Mr12345EGGNOG 7 months ago
@DjDedan Matter in motion toward randomness is an expression of the idea of entropy, an idea often called "the second law of thermodynamics."
In genetics, this tendency toward randomness is seen in the human genome. No example has been brought forth document where a known genetic improvement has occurred in the human species. In general it can be said that all known genetic changes have been harmful. These harmful changes are spreading across humanity making the collective human genome weaker.
apprentice2him 8 months ago
Many people confound theory and hypothesis. An hypotesis is not proven by definition, while a theory can both be unproven and a scientific fact at the same time. Nobody says that Newton gravitation theory "is just a theory"...
sErgEantaEgis12 9 months ago
@halflifefan84, Alright buddy, if you say so. ;) Well take care.
Nashhinton 10 months ago
Comment removed
apprentice2him 10 months ago
The theory that organisms improve themselves by adapting more complex cell structure and function is still theory, however well reasoned and illustrated. the kinds of improved complexity this scientist speculates about have never ever been actually seen in any organism. All matter moves toward randomness, not complexity.
apprentice2him 10 months ago
@apprentice2him can you give me the source for the concept that "all matter moves toward randomness"... and i'm not sure that complexity and randomness are mutually exclusive... and i'm not really sure how either statement relates to evolution but i am curious about your statement so please elucidate...
DjDedan 8 months ago
why do religious nuts go to science videos?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 11 months ago 11
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 The one million dollar question
ygrecco 11 months ago 11
@ygrecco Why do none religious nuts go to Religious videos?
Sovember 2 months ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7
Because they are told to do so. "thou shall harass every thinking being in my universe" is written in their book. hahahahhahahaha
DanDanJanJan 9 months ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 Monistic scientism postulates a universe in which the only reality is physical reality. Dualism postulates a universe with two natures, physical and spiritual, and values science that brings reality to light. The dualist enjoys the beauty, the inquiry, the discovery, the understanding of the physical for many of the same reasons as the monist. The difference is the monist takes personal pride for his discovery. The dualist derives a great joy in recognition of the Cause.
apprentice2him 8 months ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 why do atheists go to religious videos?
oldlite 7 months ago
@oldlite to laugh
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 7 months ago 3
Eyes is the hardware only (is complex enough), how it nerves connect to the brain and how can brain understand the signals? Polydactyly (six fingers) show us the case, the extra finger is not functional!
How its' brain understand how to control the focus when the eye is evolute?
AbeleWong 11 months ago
@AbeleWong I do not understand this, therefore God is responsible. Nice logic.
ygrecco 11 months ago 16
@ygrecco
No. But it shows the evolution cannot explain how eye is evolved, and it is impossible for complex system evolve, since functional organs must be evolved in a way they works together in one generation. One of the examples is the circulatory system.
AbeleWong 11 months ago
@AbeleWong That's appeal to ignorance, by definition.
ygrecco 11 months ago 2
@ygrecco hahahaha ... This is really their way of understanding life
dhafiralhadethi2 6 months ago
@AbeleWong it seems like you are then talking about Evolution of the Brain? I bet there's a youtube video that will explain that to you as well...
DjDedan 8 months ago
How will the eye know if it is in the right focus if didn't have a brain built in it .
fmflores2000 1 year ago
This is all very plausible until it gets to the lens. We go from an indentation lined with photosensitive structures to one with an unexplained bilayer that, through some inheritable process, erroneously fills itself with fluid.
Furthermore, this downplays other features of the human eye, such as the needed transition from cells that can simply detect light to ones that are sensitive to different wavelengths of light, as well as the internalization and ability to control our "pinhole" (iris).
dflocks80 1 year ago
This entire video is a bad explanation for evolution. It simply doesnt prove how life originated. And it definitely doesnt prove the theory of evolution.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Well... the thing is this video has not the intent to prove anything. It just shows a model of what we observe in nature proposing a reasonable explanation for how the eye could evolve. Its just it, a model.
ygrecco 1 year ago
@Nashhinton The study of evolution has nothing to do with how life originated (that's abiogenesis). It's a theory of evolution. Hence the name.
Etcher 1 year ago
@Etcher, I already know that.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It explains the diversity in life.
You are thinking abiogensis.
Xirbtt 1 year ago
@Xirbtt, I already know that.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton
Good thing then that evolution is about the origin of life, but its development
Serenifly84 1 year ago
I believe in natural selection as far as it doesnt get too carried away. Speciation is observable. Evolutionists must honestly think creationists are really stupid. No... I'm a smart guy.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Sorry, but if you still think that there's a man living in the sky, you're not as smart as you think ;)
halflifefan84 10 months ago
@gupsphoo, Yet the explanation is dealing with natural selection (which is a provable observation within real evolution). The only thing I disagree with in evolution is speciation that transcends the certain taxonomical groupings such as the genus-- but rarely the family. In certain primitive animals, speciation does transcend the family. But, when you appraoch complex forms, that speciation is limited. Also, there is no proof for abiogenesis and primordial soup. If there is proof, give me some
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Evolution does not deal with origin of life. If just postulae that since there is life, it is under enviromental pressure and competition, therefore it changes or die.
ygrecco 1 year ago
@ygrecco, Right. Natural selection... Do you know any subtheories within the entire theory of evolution? Evolution actually means gradual change, by the way
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Actualy I do know several mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection. Unfortunaly I do not master english lenguage to expose it here. I teach Evolution on university.
ygrecco 1 year ago
@ygrecco, Oh cool. Professor...
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@ygrecco, Abiogenesis is not evolution. Good analysis... I believe you deserve a Nobel prize (rolls eyes).
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@illustratos, LOL!!! Wow! Look who's talking! You definitely forgot to add several punctuation marks in your own comment! You forgot several commas and the one colon to begin your entire list. I believe your the "Fucktard"! LOL!
Nashhinton 1 year ago
But he MADE that artificial eye by himself, which proves a designer! The 1st question in this video was something like, how long it would take for natural selection to make an eye.... Well he never answered that question, simply because he designed the eye! He never gave proof on how the eye is not irreducibly complex, which makes this video even dumber. To me, this video just proves God! Chance cant create an eye.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton Watch the video again, and listen very carefully to the explanation. If you still don't get it, you're destined to be an ignorant Creationist for life.
gupsphoo 1 year ago 40
@gupsphoo You have evolved a brain in your anus. You sit on it all day.
oldlite 8 months ago
To be honest, the university researcher did his best, for his research project. However, let's be honest, the gaps between a cell (which we assume already exists and it's capable) that detects light (how did this come about?), and all the wiring that takes place between the eye and the brain, ***and**** the fact that the brain is capable of interpret as well, **and** send neural messages to the other parts for storage purposes, is simply not feasible random process. It's a design. Nice try!
oopscanada 1 year ago
whats even more amazing amazing amazing is that along with these photo cells (that just happened to be there to start with - that was real lucky), was that the optic nerve with over 153million connections to the 1 sq inch at the back of the eye evolved too, as well as the connection to the brain, as well as the method to interpret the image, as well as the mechanism to send signals to other parts of the brain to engage fight or flight responses - WOW! With no guiding force or agent -LUCKY huh!
bradmorris67 1 year ago 2
@bradmorris67 That's exactly the point that this "blind" scientists are missing!!!!
oopscanada 1 year ago
As an 'eye patient' who has had 3 operations on my right eye in the past few weeks, talked to many patients, and eye doctors, believe me when I say that the eye is far from perfect!! 100's of thousands of people each year have, like me, retinal tears and detachments, cataracts, glaucoma etc. The hospital I attended sees 300 000 outpatients each year, for example. The eye is poorly 'wired' as you know, thus causing a blind spot. VERY simple rewiring would have eliminated this. Poor design.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
@derek24hudson So, the blind spot is *proof* that it was not designed? Ha ha!
oopscanada 1 year ago
@oopscanada Well, if the best your omniscient God can do is come up with a jerry-rigged eye that has numerous design flaws, he must be a shitty deity. I can just see it in a bible verse now: "And on the sixth day, God said, 'Damn, these eye-contraptions are kinda tricky. Let's see, if I cross this nerve here, put the muscle here.... there, perfect!'. Then Adam replied, 'Uh, God? I have a blind spot right here.' The Almighty said, 'Damn, I thought I'd fixed that. Oh well, it's good enough.'"
Chamiletchisonai 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@derek24hudson This is an excellent point.
Etcher 1 year ago
This doesnt prove anything. No amount of selective breeding or genetic manipulation could add the genetic information needed for the eye, or any other organ for that manner.You know evolution is completely dependant on a primary manipulation of DNA. This would need to answer the question "How did the DNA information make its way into the organism, in order for it to even start to develop eyes?" Not simply make a model to how it was formed, it doesnt even answer the most basic of questions.
Millipedecult 1 year ago
@Millipedecult as an evolutionary biology major its hard for me to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. you only get by with this claim only by leaving the term "genetic information" undefined and vague. by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve
ihmen 1 year ago
Evolution is basically a tautology based on many, many assumptions.
"It must have happened so it did happen."
Castaril 1 year ago
@Castaril
How is that any different than the absurd assumption made by theologies that an invisible sky daddy made everything the way it is today. Explaining away things with "god did it" is why Americans today are self involved and have no interest in discovery or exploration. Why figure things out when it's easier to just say "god did it"? You've squandered the amazing brain that your ancient ancestors/cousins strived to keep alive just to deny their relation. You should be ashamed.
Illustratos 1 year ago 3
@Illustratos Humans were created through genetic manipulation by extraterrestrials.
Castaril 1 year ago
@Castaril Lol @ the conspiracy retard
halflifefan84 10 months ago
No one can explain to me how an eye simply mutated itself into existence.
Castaril 1 year ago
Amazing.
RichieJohnSauls 1 year ago
It's Liam neesons voice we hear isn't it?
kongerle 1 year ago
Why do we have two eyes, evolutionary speaking? Is it because we need both eyes to interpret three dimensions?
Schizima 1 year ago
@Schizima Our ancient ancestors had 2 eyes, 1 eye on each side, so that they could see both on the left, and right. ever since then 2 eyes on a mammal was beneficial enough. 1 eye less would make it easy prey. 1 eye more just didn't happen.
ArtypNk 1 year ago
don't get me wrong it is simple to see adaptation and natural selection, I just don't believe all life started from slime on a rock, or slime in the ocean. I don't believe we move from slime to the divine. I don't believe in progress to higher levels of existence through evolution.
mackac81 1 year ago
evolution is self defeated in that the theory can't stand if it is true because the theory itself is do to evolution. Therefore it is in the process of evolving and since we are only a step in evolution any theory we create must be false for a new one must constantly evolve out of the older less perfect theory, as supposedly new humans will evolve out of us.
mackac81 1 year ago
@mackac81 Theories and processes are two different things, thus no self-defeatism.
The evolution of theory's helps us embrace more evidence. Theories are not false, merely imperfect. Otherwise everything would be false.
Perfect would mean absolute certainty, which is a religious tenant.
Thomas60 1 year ago
@Thomas60 No doubt they are two different things, but this does not explain away the Law of biogenesis, or any of the other problematic aspects of of the origin. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. . Mathematicians consider events in nature with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.
mackac81 1 year ago
forgot quotes on the last two sentences, my bad!
mackac81 1 year ago
Is that Liam Neeson???
TehKign12356 1 year ago
How'd the vertebrate's "inverted" retina develop? How would this have become "fixed" in a population, when without the concurrent development of Müller cells, which are similar to fiber-optics, to allow transmission of light through the retina layers to reach the photocells? Without these, the inverted retina is useless and deadly...and Müller cells in an everted retina are again, useless and deadly. So which came first?
PZG4SS 1 year ago
Of course I understand evolution which is just adaptation, giving really simple explanations for incredibly complicatated processes leaving out extremely important information which devalues what they are saying. Then the slow minded look at that information and think "oh yeah that makes sense" without questioning all the parts that have been left absent. Explain the mass proliferation of different species over a short time after mass extinction events through evolution?
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 Oh right.... creationists are always searching for the new Holly Graal, just like Michael Behe, who changes his Graal all the time...
ygrecco 1 year ago
@ygrecco Oh you think I believe some entity spirited everything here, thats pure nonsense. Evolutionists are seeing adaptation which occurs at every level, I see no evidence of one species of any form evolving into another. At the microscopic level where viruses adapt at super rates the flu virus is still the flu virus after thousands of years. Theres something missing that causes the arise of new species, Ive studied evolution but dismissed it because of reasons too many to mention here.
mykill100 1 year ago
@ygrecco People watch this video and forget that an eye isnt just an eye its also the optic center of the brain which would also have to change after each step to make sense of the information. Without that change no natural advantage occurs I dont see him mentioning how that comes about.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 Yu're still using Michael Behe's refuted argument. Maybe you should read more.
ygrecco 1 year ago 8
@ygrecco I'm not. I'm stating facts that refute evolution and no evolutionist has counter argumented with solid evidence. Evolution is called a theory for a reason and all theorys lack one thing. Can you tell me what that thing is? Just because I say evolution doesnt have all the answers doesnt make me this Behe guy. just a guy with questions, So I'm a Behe therefore your a sheep.
mykill100 1 year ago
@ygrecco Not necessarily. The brain automatically wires anything new. But it doesn't necessarily understand it. The human brain is unique in its ability to consciously know training improves something, as opposed to animals which simply use what they have, or slightly more intelligent animals like crows and apes, which make tools to help develop.
Also you must sill define the alteration to the constructor proteins that successfully produces form. That dude had factory made parts.
Gormanmod 1 year ago
@Gormanmod Yes I understand the brain can be very adaptive, Ive seen experiments showing if you wear goggles which portray the world has upside down after a few days the brain will turn the image the right way up. That said things like colour which the brain can switch the colour processor off in traumatic situations where the data isnt needed to save your life is a problem for evolution. did the colour receptive cells or the colour processor evolve first?
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 Well the chances are that a cell evolved that could perceive color, but the extra data was unimportant. At some point the brain understood the data and began to develop it into usable data, just making more space.
Remember, the brain can chose what to turn off, convert, or turn on. That goes into begging many more questions, such as just how powerful IS the brain, and is it just lazy by default. You have to train it?
Gormanmod 1 year ago
@ygrecco
It's still a real bitch to explain how the eye and the brain would co-evolve. The only way I can see it happening is if they both started out as part of the same tissue and then separated, but still, nobody can describe those steps in any detail.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@mykill100 That comes about slowly in steps at the same time the eye is forming.
elaine02270 1 year ago
@elaine02270 You obviously dont understand how evolution is suppose to work. Any mutation must offer an advantage over other of the same species. Its called natural selection. If the mutation to the eye has no corresponding part in the visual cortex to understand the new imformation how can it be picked via natural selection. Both mutations would have to happen together or the cortex mutation within one life cycle. Theres many flaws to this theory if people want to ignore them its up to them.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 you dont understand what the brain can do
derrick713 1 year ago
@derrick713 No, you dont understand what the brain cant do, many mutations appear causing the growth of limbs and eyes in different places yet they are all useless, You cant just add bits to a body and expect the brain to be able to use them. What came first the colour sensitive cell or the brains ability to process colour?
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 what came first the chicken or the egg argument shows only what your brain cannot do which is to have a rational thought. mutations that cause deformities have no advantage that would make the deformity "normal" . a simple mutation that gives you the ability to walk upright or use your hand to grasp tools better or give you the ability to run. early man had all those abilities and had a much smaller brain and you can relate to that
derrick713 1 year ago
@derrick713 These mutatations are very specific and random, if the brain doesnt have the ability to process the new imformation I cant see how it can be picked via natural selection. The mutations you mentioned dont require added brain power. You cant graft human eyes onto a flat worm and expect it to have spatial awareness and colour vision. The problem lies in why natural selection would come into effect for a mutation the brain is unable to utilize.
mykill100 1 year ago
@derrick713 Actually, I think homo-erectus had a 1800cc Brain, and we, today, only have a 1400cc brain. So they were a bit smarter then us!
halflifefan84 10 months ago
@mykill100 That's because he was talking about the eye not about the neural connections. Just like a TV chef might not go into where the food comes from or where it ends up when he's creating a dish.
I would suggest looking at the whole programme and doing some serious 'off youtube' research on the subject.
andnoreligiontoo 1 year ago
@ygrecco Don't bother. It's the typical attitude. "Oh, ok this works.. But what about this! There's no obvious answer! HAHA! It's flawed!" And so on forever and ever...
Verruckter 1 year ago
@mykill100 easy. evolution is allabout trade offs. this is why mass extictions happen. creatures evolve more complex and specialasied to their enviorment witch means that they loose other paths to take. if enviorment changes the animals that have led to evolutionary death end die out, while the most generalised creatures survive and start to specialaise again. this is how it works my friend. this is why mass extictions happen.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Comment removed
mykel100 1 year ago
4:04 reptilian eyez
simonbear666 2 years ago
They always say that nature would favour certain changes without any evidence how would nature favour 4 light sensitive cells over 2? Evolution shows adaptation at best but not how one species can become another. We are missing something important, how did this amazing code we call DNA come about or the many microscopic machines that work inside a cell decoding that DNA. Evolution is problomatic and its time scientists admitted the truth. We just dont know.
mykill100 2 years ago
true
zenithar6666 2 years ago
Being able to detect light from more than one direction requires more cells. A new species forming is caused by those small adaptations stacked up over a very long time. How DNA originated is explained through abiogenesis. Look it up.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@mykill100 just because *you* don't know... don't start projecting on everyone else.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut What a stupid thing to say, all this is being projected on the population are you saying we cant reply. Evolution shows diversity within species, if you have one shred of factual evidence that its involved in the diversity of species put it forward or shut your arrogant mouth
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 what the heck are you talking about? I'm saying if you don't understand something it doesn't mean that the rest of us don't. The video makes sense, so does evolution.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut This is what I'm talking about. The video makes about has much sense has you do. If you cant see the glaring inconsistancies staring you in the face it says about has much as I need to know about you. Ive given several examples of why the video doesnt make sense youve given none to counter those facts other than come on and shout rah rah the video makes sense to you. I should it imagine it does, not that any of the thinking is your own.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 your whole argument is that you don't understand it. We get that. Everybody can see that you don't understand it, and everyone knows why. Stop announcing to the world that you are a simpleton. It's embarrassing.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut OK I'm the simpleton yet you havent produced one piece of fact or evidence to this discussion. I dont need to defend myself, people only have to read your comments. Maybe you should read them yourself sometime and realise your saying nothing. Sit and think about clever you think you are, your the only one doing it.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 I haven't produced one piece of evidence? It's not my job to do so. The evidence is there if you look for it. Pick up a scientific journal sometime. Open a biology text book. I'm not your secretary and won't cut & paste for you because you're too lazy to look yourself. The reason you don't understand evolution is 1 of 2 things. a) you're willfully ignorant. Biased. Only getting info from or trusting partisan sources. or b) you're too stupid to grasp even simple concepts of biology.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut WOW! it took you so long to write that out. I have a perfect understanding of evolution but I can see the flaws. If your not here to join in the discussion, what is your purpose? Oh thats it to try and shout down those who dont agree with what you think. Go away you fool. I understand your embarrassment now.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 I'm not shouting and you're the one that's embarrassing yourself, you pathetic mental midget. YOU are the fricking monumental idiot who built your entire argument around "evolution doesn't make sense." MY response was simply speak for yourself... if you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple theory, then shut the fuck up. The rest of us aren't quite as dumb as you are, so why should we hold ourselves back because YOU don't understand. Consider Quantum Physics. continued...
kalbahamut 1 year ago
Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics are extremely complex and much more difficult to understand than the relatively simple and elegant theory that the variety of species on Earth arose through natural selection. If, say, some dumbfuck like yourself, or if a million dumbfucks like yourself, don't understand Quantum Mechanics, should we shelve all theories related to it? Should we stop research into this area? Should we start teaching Intelligent Design Mechanics instead?
kalbahamut 1 year ago
No, of course we shouldn't. And nobody is going to propose that we do for the simple fact that theories in these much more complex and difficult to understand areas of science are not a threat to anyone's stupid asinine primitive small-minded dumbfuck religious ideas. That's the only reason mental degenerates like yourself ever try to make an argument out of this, because you would start crying if Jesus lied to you and Noah didn't save all the animals on a boat like you learned in Sunday School.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut ooooh your really getting upset now, I'm no creationist so thats something else your wrong about not that youve been right about anything. Youve obviously not even read the comments on this page. Are you now proffessing to be quantum machanics expert too now. You make me laugh, keep sending your BS the more it comes the more I post it on real discussion sites because we're having such a laugh about you right now. Your todays entertainment :)
mykill100 1 year ago
you're an ID proponent? haha. Moron. You're the one who has publicly admitted to being so stupid he can't understand a simple theory, and the one that first resorted to insults because your "arguments" were completely pathetic, and now on top of everything you are lying about your beliefs to try and enhance your own credibility, which is ridiculous. Who is the "we" in your statement? Did you develop multiple personalities as a coping mechanism for when the priest was making you suck his dick?
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut Something else whats really funny the way you keep reffering to yourself in the third person. Who is "we". I just had it pointed out I missed that one. Or do you presume to be speaking for everyone. Who do you think you are? sat there with a god complex, get help mate or cut down on the drugs.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 The "we" I'm referring to is everyone in the world who is not a colossal knuckle-dragging invisible-man worshiping idiot.
You are also using "we" and not explaining who it is but I already guessed it's you and the multiple personalities your obviously deluded mind has concocted to help you cope with reality. Or your Bible study group standing behind you and cheering you on as you "stick it" to those darn Satanic science-types. =D oh boy...
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut Ive used the word We're for the other people I'm in discussion with. Your speaking for the entire world apparently. Arnt you a little busy with all those quantum mechanics equations to keep coming back to make a bigger fool of yourself and it is yourself, the people your on about are "they" to you. You should only use I when relating to the fool. Your boring me now, you keep repeating the same BS. I know you believe the world revolves around you, but it really doesnt. keep happy now.
mykill100 1 year ago
who do you imagine is on your side of this argument? You're trying to out smack-talk five or six different people at once, all of whom are obviously smarter than you, yet you feel like you are somehow in the intellectual majority. Talk about God complex. If there ever was a good proof for God, though, (and I'll spoil and tell you right now there's not) then it might be that given the difference in intellect between you (miniscule) and me, there might conceivably be something as advanced as God.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@mykill100 btw, "we" is not the 3rd-person, jackass. Apparently you fail in English grammar just as bad (well, maybe not quite as bad) as you fail in science. Idiot. Dolt. Simpleton. Go back to church.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut Who are the 6 people, I commented on a god guy who called every one Smucks who didnt believe in god, "We" is in the third person look it up, its either refering to yourself by name or has "we" has in the royal "we" so your wrong yet again. For another one I'm athiest and always have been. Get at least one thing right. You are funny though, some of your metaphores are amusing but like I said its getting boring. Youve proved you cant converse and thats about it.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 uh... no... we is the first person plural. jesus you're stupid. YOU look it up. And you are not an atheist. You're only saying that you are so that you can lend some hint of credibility to your completely asinine positions. I know the drill. I used to read the same idiotic Creationist literature that you do. Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham. etc. I know where you're getting your "ideas" from and I know about the ploy to try and confuse people into thinking ID is not religion
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut "I" is the first person, "you" is the second person the third person is stating yourself has others, Narcistic people do it because there never to blame for anything. Does that ring a bell. If you took the time to read my posts all the questions are valid and I dont make statements like this is the way it is because Evolution doesnt have all the answers and I dont pretend to either thats why I ask questions. ID brings more questions than it answers. I dont read any creationist lit.
mykill100 1 year ago
this is truly amazing. Apparently you Creationist morons have the same approach to every argument. I mean, on the one hand, if you wanted to actually exert a *little* bit of effort and stop being so ignorant and lazy, you could actually research Evolutionary Biology and find answers to all your asinine questions that you raise about it. I guess the same thing applies for grammar. If you took 2 seconds to look it up, you would see that I am absolutely right that "we" is ALWAYS first person.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@mykill100 Please proof read or stop posting comments because right now you look like a legit fucktard.
1. Punctuate.
2. Use proper sentence structure.
3. Get bent.
4. Learn how to form a proper argument.
5. Go fuck yourself.
6. ???
7. PROFIT!!!
Illustratos 1 year ago
@kalbahamut just because I question Evolution doesnt make me a creationist. But you dont understand that. Everytime an hole is found in the theory they fill it with a new type of evolution like "rapid evolution" My beliefs are we dont know the whole story yet and may never in my lifetime. i could point to videos like the one on human genome 2 that the scientist unwittingly refutes evolution to prove evolution which doesnt wear with me.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 you're pulling the wool over our eyes. Our meaning everyone on the internet which is the audience when you make posts on YouTube, jackass. Of course you say you are not a Creationist. That's what they all say. And now you say that ID raises more questions than it answers but five hours ago you even used the word Designer. You dorks know that you have no argument, and believe that by trying, in vain, to find any weakness in evolution you have somehow prevailed.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@mykill100 If I believed even for one second that you were actually a legitimate skeptic and not some fundie freak we would be in 100% agreement. Not because Evolution is a weak theory (it's not, the evidence is overwhelming in spite of whatever "holes" there may or may not be) but because I believe all things should be questioned. As long as those questions are made honestly and without ulterior motives or agendas.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut Ive come to the conclusion your actually insane, My main interests are IT and Art and I question everything. This delusion that people are creationists hiding has skeptics is rather strange, Ive studied some religions and rejected them with Hinduism probably the closest which says we are all one entity split into millions of parts by time. But has for some guy in the sky who created all this is just has delusional has your opinions. We,Us,Them all third person. I, Me, first person
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 Jesus fuck you are stupid... sigh... this can't be legitimate. You must be a troll. I think I finally figured it out. And... I have to admit... you got me. So, congrats. I actually thought you were serious up until this last post.
Anyway, given your grasp of the English language, and science, I'm not too worried about your assessment of my mental health. Or your assessment of anything, for that matter. I'm serious, take two seconds and type in "grammatical person" and see.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
@kalbahamut Plus its not the amount of evidence for evolution that concerns me its the very obvious contradictions, I know evolution is the cause of diversity within species but the origin and diversity of species is another matter. Like I said I dont have all the answers niether do the books which I read constantly. I have my own opinions none of them include god or gods but know by examining scientific experiments that propergation isnt the only way information can be exchanged.
mykill100 1 year ago
@mykill100 wtf is propergation? haha. I think you're on to something there.
kalbahamut 1 year ago
Terrible. False. Foolish.
JackSparrow2009777 2 years ago
Having one light receptive cell would give the same information has a hundred, it would only be able to tell if there was light or not. Any other adaptation would require a change in the creatures brain to allow for spacial awareness. This video fails at the begining. having more light receptive cells would not be an advantage without something to process said information. Its nonsense. I could pick evolution apart a million ways and the fact of this, is up to yet I dont know how it happened.
mykel100 1 year ago
Ive also read on how DNA may have possibly evolved but that is also a theory and is filled with massive amounts of supposition strangely it can not be repeated in a laboratory. Niether is there ever been a case of one animal giving birth to another species, birds come in millions of forms through adaptation but they are all still birds.
mykel100 1 year ago
why do people come out with questions, we are humans, we dont no anythink, we are insects in the universe, yet we seem to think we are clever
qwertyranj 2 years ago
Regarding: 1:26 - 1:46.
How comes flatworms (very old creatures in terms of earth history) didn't need a better eye? If this theory of eye evolution were true, they would have benefited from even a slightly better eye as other animals did.
Is it true, that the existence of flatworms today demonstrates that this theory is just wrong?
bubis 2 years ago
Improvement is not mandatory. It is needed selective pressure. If there is not, there is no modification.
ygrecco 2 years ago
These steps in evolution are said to be beneficial. So even a bit better eye would be beneficial for even a flatworm. So it should have a better eye, because it had millions of years to develop whatever is beneficial for it, right? We should not see primitive eyes today, unless it is relatively a new development, as far as I am concerned.
bubis 2 years ago
Thats a common mistake. ou have a te+leological vew of evolution
ygrecco 2 years ago
Could you be more specific? Where is the mistake?
bubis 2 years ago
No we should see no EXCLUSIVELY primitive eyes. Just because something is primitive, doesn't mean it isn't effective given limited applications. If a flat worms life is confined to a very simple set of processes, then simple eyes work fine. But flat worms have also evolved and have cousins with more complex eyes, from other worms all the way to us. A good analogy are tools. Just because a carpenter has screw guns and power drills doesn't mean a hand screwdriver is never useful.
gabetuno 2 years ago
either the flash light works or it dosint 7,000 lenses in a fly - human? open ur eyes world
barbarac89 2 years ago
You guy's are forgetting a key factor. When someone says god is outside of nature he cannot be compatible with science because that is defying science on it's own.
IronicAtheist 2 years ago
Dear schmucks:
G-d is not incompatible with science.
Even Einstein, who was not a religious person, himself never declared himself to be atheist. "Religion without Science is lame, Science without religion is blind".
Maybe all you geniuses, including King Dawkins, who is your Supreme Ruler, are smarter than Einstein, and many minds including Da Vinci, Franklin and Lincoln who firmly believed in G-d?
If you want, believe in evolution.
Just don't be atheist garbage.
TheJewishView 2 years ago