I don't know who you are. If you're looking for facts, I can tell you that I have many. What I do have are a particular set of papers. Papers written over very long and prestigious careers in science. Papers that are a nightmare to people like you. If you shut up, sit down, and listen to what these incredible individuals have to say, that will be the end of it. I will not lecture you, I will not ridicule you. But if you don't...I will lecture you. I WILL ridicule you. AND I WILL TEACH YOU.
Do you evo's think that the steam engine was modified over the years with tiny incremental steps until the final step resulted in an internal combustion engine with a carburetor, cam shaft and valves etc, seeing as they both use a piston. There are MASSIVE leaps from one DESIGN to another, these leaps are left for the evo to construct in his own mind. The human eyes have multiple systems that needed to evolve simultaneously, without any advantage for NS to favour it. Evolution is pseudoscience.
@Aeolistify The evolutionists said the eyes co-evolved with the codes and signals, optic nerves, and the visual cortex. You can't question or argue against it because evolution is a fact so it must happen, no matter how absurd the logic is.
This is suggesting that all the eye started out as was a patch of light-sensitive cells. And that slowly evolved into eyes, due to natural selection. But it forgets that there is so much more to the eye. Even the basest form of eye would have required a means of transmitting the signals to the brain. And that means of transmission, by necessity, had to have evolved at the exact same time, otherwise that patch of light-sensitive cells would have been utterly useless to the creature possessing it.
I don't get it, how exactly does this show that an eye evolved? Not that I'm trying to inject bias or anything, but all I see is a guy showing designs of different eyes for different animals....
@telejelly If you watch and pay attention, you'll find that they are going through the various stages of development. One argument against evolution is that the eye is irreducibly complex, they showed that it isn't and showed how the different stages build up. we went from a primitive eye to a modern eye.
however, the information content in this video is pathetic, you'd do well to look it up further to understand.
Yup my pc not same as 20 years ago... Because a DESIGNER built a better one :-). The pc is a alternitive of a organism im using it to see if you can get it in your corrupt athiest mind that evolution is wrong. Yes your correct the eye did not form out of nothing which is why it did not evolve. It was made by a divine creator. If the universe was not finly tuned then the chances of our planet being at the exact point in the milky way for us to exist is negligable.
Nice wee experimental video but... It like a 1:1000000000 chance that random selection would form a eye is it not? Just like the fine tuning of the universe there is like 1:1000000000 chance if that happening. So some of you believe random assprtments created all this? Let me put it another way:- if you believe randome parts came together and formed a microsoft pc then kl :-) but impossible without a creator
What are your variables? An eye didn't form out of nothing. There was a gradual change of forms. Ergo..it's like: 1:1, the odds. "fine tuning"; there is no such thing. Uncertainty principle makes sure of that.
There's a very unlikely chance to win the lottery and yet, some people win it.
Yes, RANDOM mutations originate the traits. which are subject to natural selection.
A pc is inanimated matter, not a living organism. Plus the pc you have today is not the same pc of 20 years ago.
The whole vision system is not just an eye, you also have parts like the optic nerve, primary and secondary visual cortex, and occipital lobe all these systems have to work flawlessly or you have no vision. Extreme chemical cascades are also present, and then reset. Face it the eye never evolved, it was created by a mighty God.
The eye is useless by itself. What about all the systems that are needed to support the eye and nourish the eye?
What good is an eye without a signal transmission system to a signal decoder, that is something to interpret the signals so that organism can respond to the image?
The eye is part of a visual system, all of whose parts must be in place.
@zaxineohp Are you sure you watched to video? Re watch it.
If you pay attention, put your biases aside, and examine what is being said critically, you'll realise it's completely viable. No one is saying an eye popped up from nowhere the way we have them. The reason this creationist arguement seems to work is that it's irreducably, as you say. Unfortunately, that's wrong, the video explains it very well. Light sensitive skin is *not* an eye and shows how complexity CAN be reduced.
@Krazed2Kraze The video talks about the evolution of the eye apart from a complete visual system. I didn't say anything about the eye being irreducibly complex. What I am saying is that the eye is part of a vision system. The most important part of the system is the organ that interprets the visual information from the eye and alters the behavior of the organism. An eye without that is useless.
Would you buy a camera that wouldn't allow you to see the pictures you took?
"The eye is part of a visual system, all of whose parts must be in place."
And all of whose parts similarly evolved from simple forms.
This video explains simply the eyeball, but that's not to say the nervous system isn't undergoing the same transitions. You start with photo receptors and a crude sensory system, everything
The evilution of the EYE. Where is all the Cyclops skulls? Why did 2 eyes evolve insted of just 1 or 5. What about all the protection it has, being slightly inset in the skull, with eye lashes to help keep out foreign particles and the eye brows to help prevent sweat from getting in them? Along with a system that keeps it lubricated? Oh yah, how did all the different colors of the iris evolve too?
major problems when speaking against it. When someone says the theory's garbage, those who adhere to it will simply present those aspects of the theory for which they have evidence for, in an an attempt to get you to accept the entire thing.
What fools these mortals be. It's videos like these that make me wanna hit my head against the wall in frustration. This is nothing more than a fairytale dreamt up by someone who desperately wants to concoct a story to dismiss God. You know the whole message behind evolution is that we don't need a creator, we evolved into the complex beings that we by ourselves. Stupidity.
@robdmccoy Except that the video mentions nothing about religion or God. It simply states the series of steps by which the complex human eye came to evolve by stating intermediate steps and identifying where those intermediate steps are still present in the natural world. There is no "message behind evolution" other than... things evolve. It's not a fairytale if there is documented evidence for it and the evidence can be organized to make a claim. That's a scientific theory.
This video doesn't have to mention anything about God or religion. The fact that the idea is put forth is more than enough to discern it's underlying message. You see, if you eliminate a creator than you have to come up with another reason as to how we came about. This silly idea is an attempt at doing just that. There's also something that needs to be mentioned. ONe must understand that certain parts of the theory are true while other parts are clearly false. This presents a....
@robdmccoy There is nothing to be implied about the video other than complex eyes evolved from more simple ones. Evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, so there is no need to "eliminate a creator." One could believe that a god set life into motion and evolution took over from there. No part of evolution I know of is false. All components have been documented and proven. If you could, please tell me one of these false parts of the theory you claim exist.
existed…yes yes yes the reason why they say it took millions of years is because they cant prove it since human observation is only about 100 200 years. And no eye has evolved in our science history that we can look at and say YES! it’s a fact that eyes have evolved. You atheist have intelligence and cant even create a peanut yet you expect me to believe a eye came together without intelligence and s master mind, nothing but delusion.
@MPS186282 If it didn’t come by its self then it has a master mind behind it thank you exactly our point.
You cant prove that these eyes evolved from simpler ones since it has never been observed. Evolution does believe that living matter came from inorganic matter or else you would be saying living matter always
@pamuk7 "Evolution does believe that living matter came from inorganic matter" No, it doesn't. That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution makes no claims to the origin of life. You clearly do not know what evolution is, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. Please do some research and find out what evolution actually states before attempting to disprove it.
@pamuk7 That is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. The two theories are completely different. Evolution simply states that after life emerged, it diversified and changed, regardless of whether a god gave rise to life or if it sprang up spontaneously. The former option is how religious people view evolution. God created life, and evolution diversified it. Religious people often do not believe in abiogenesis because this WOULD deny a God in most ways. Evolution itself, however, does not.
@pamuk7 For the record, we're not made up of living matter as if we had some strange substance in us that can only be found in us, if you look at the top ~5 or so most prevalent forms of matter in the universe, we happen to also mostly be made of those (eg. Carbon). Coincidence? I think not. We are made of star stuff, -Sagan
Oh, and evolution has *NOTHING* to do with how life came about, sorry. At least you're honest about not knowing much about evolution unlike some other people I know >.>
what a stupid video. If this guy thinks a eye just evolved on its own with no designer he is basically saying a kodak camra just came together by its self. This guy is nuts built on just assumption..and no proof, yeh there proof is: it took millions years to happen. Can they prove it no..lol
@pamuk7 It's not "basically saying" that a camera came together by itself, it's saying that complex eyes evolved from simpler ones. Evolution makes claims regarding organic creatures that can reproduce and pass on genes. It does not make claims regarding inorganic objects. And there is proof for evolution. The video gives specific examples of where primitive eyes are present. So yes, it did take millions of years, and yes, they can prove it.
congrats! You talked about HOW it COULD have happened. Now prove that it DID happen.
typical evolutionist stupidity. They don't know the definition of PROOF. Talking about how something could have happened, is not the same as proving that it did happen.
@22complexity It's not enough that most of these stages are still present in living organisms, as well as ordered by complexity along the phylogenetic tree?
What kind of evidence would you accept that could convince you evolution is real?
@tarrin4ever #1 You address them as STAGES. Only in your mind are there any stages. There just different parts
#2 What would i accept as evidence?? you would have to show me a Morphological change in a creature that lasted for more than a few generations and was beneficial. morphological change equels the form AND structure of a creature. It would have to get through the 3 known layers of DNA error corrections. This is highly unlikely. But you would have to show me an example to convince me
@22complexity "God" could have written the bible, now PROVE to me that it did. Your entire claim that the bible is true is dependent on that god wrote the bible, if it didn't write the bible, then anyone can write a book and claim it was written by God and therefore automatically it true.
@Andreask93 What???? You know thats an invalid question. There are so many things in this life you believe, but can't prove. I can't prove to you that George Washington existed, but the evidence is overwhelming. I believe that God exists based on evidence. The most complelling evidence is biblical prophecie. You can look it up yourself it's all over the internet. i am not going to site sources because I suspect your older than 12 years of age.
@22complexity self fulfilling prophecies is not proof of anything. The old testament is full of prophecies that are fulfilled in the new testament, the only thing this proves is that the guys who wrote the new testament read the old one first. Besides, anyone can make predictions of future, here I'll make one: "Oh, the streets will be littered with dust,ash and death, the lost souls will be in the thousands" Sooner or later, something will happen that matches this description.
@22complexity You can prove that Washington existed because he did, and he left large amounts of physical evidence. From this evidence we can draw the conclusion that he did in fact exist. You can putt all the evidence on a table and prove to me that he existed. The question is if I accept the proof or, if I'll choose to remain willingly ignorant about the existence of Washington the way that creationists choose not to accept the conclusive proof of evolution.
@22complexity- Then please explain to me how we came into existence, other than the bible saids it, god did it and I believe it, and then we all just randomly popped into existence. Please show me!
This is the reason why science is going down hill. These people are all subjective thinker. All they see is evolution and don't realize the other factors that influence science. They talk so much about evolution evolving into all these things and they still can kill a virus in the DNA. ALL BS TO ME.
I've read about the evolution of the eye in several places, including Prof. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable which gave an extremely detailed description on how the eye could have evolved. Although Dawkins' description was much more detailed than this video, images really help to put things into perspective for you and I'm glad I saw this video because it doesn't leave it down to the imagination how the eye could've evolved and instead gives a step-by-step process using images. Thanks!
This vid gets an A+ for creative marketing and a D minus for science content. It's so full conjecturing and theory that it needs Liam Neeson to narrate - just to get it to production.
@enoshthecat everything starts as guess work. its refining the guess work that makes it science. he gave examples of simple creatures with simple eyes, to more complex creatures with more complex eyes. it may not be how it happened, but its likely that it is. which is as much as you can ask for
@enoshthecat They need one bad ass like Liam Neeson to convince people. This man trained Batman, a jedi master, a god Zeus, and the Great Aslan. You dare not listen to him??
What would an Inefficient eye hypothetically look like anyway? would it be like the ocelli of flatworms? would it be a proclivity to sense sunburn through photsensitive chemotaxis like in some mollusks?
yes, but compared to an animal with no eyesight whatsoever (which would have to be the alternative in your arguement) even the small advantage of little eyesight would be benifical to the organism over the other with no eyesight ...
Tell that to the bat. It all depends on the overall abilities of the creature. If you can't beat them, run, if you can't run, hide, if you can't hide, breed faster.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What ! !!!! This is funny......
I am a physician and studied the eye at the anatomic and microscopic level . what that man claims is ridiculous. the eye is much more complex than the video shows . If you study it you will laugh at this oversimplification.
Also, Mutations cannot add new structures, not even as simple as this water balloon he added.
What? Study shows that one that is on medicine will recover regardless if you pray or not. How about NOT prescribing medicine and just 100% prayer. Are you saying man-made drugs are more effective then God-inspired prayer?
"In Harris' study, the length of the hospital stay and the time spent in the cardiac unit were no different for the two groups."
You really need to read your own cited articles. This article said that more investigation is needed, but that's total bullshit because they needed another control. They need one group praying to the Christian God, one without prayer, and one praying to a different god--like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think so, and then also praying to a god isn't the only way, which I think is right (you also have fast healing people who don't believe in god). ^^ So maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster-god would work too. XD
@rafikgl a study was also done to show that while people had surgery, those who were not prayed for and those that were prayed for in secret had the same chance/rate of recovery. HOWEVER the patients who knew people were praying for them had more complications.
"If both muscle contractions and photosynthetic processes were happening in the same cells it would be easier for a connection between photons hitting a pigment molecule and muscle contractions to evolve."
Likely true. But from where life apparently evolve there was not a lot of light. Muscle contractions for rock rooted animals like sea cucumbers predated the use in motile animals. So the nervous system for synchronizing contractions was already in place.
"I guess one thing would be to make the animal out of all the same type of cell.."
You're forgetting that they are taking the few LEGO parts they have an rearranging them to accomplish different tasks. From the seed, the each daughter cell (be it nerve or bone or what) all have the equipment to be each other kind of cell.
"Are you saying that the nerves evolved from the muscles"
You have to go back to the beginning. The sponge. The cells of a sponge are each capable of each of the different support jobs. They swicth roles depending on their local envirnment. Among the roles are releasing signal molecules to syncronize contractions(nutrient pumps). I couldn't say how the way our cells get "fixed" (stuck on one function) was beneficial. Repurposing seems like a much better way. Regeneration should be simpler.
Right and once you have what you call decomposition you then need this change that has occured inside the cell to be communicated to outside the cell even if directly to a muscle cell. The parts are increasing in number.
Right and once you have what you call decomposition you then need this change that has occured inside the cell to be communicated to outside the cell even if directly to a muscle cell. The parts are increasing in number.
Mortison99799: Well in short can a "seeing system" be reduced back to less than a multistage process? Or coming at it the other way, can you make something that sees that is anything less than a mutistage mechanism?
Thank for a sensible reply seriously they are being a rarity on here. But I really do not see that this addresses my points. Whether the information is traveling to a brain, simple brain, a ganglia or are on a Brittle Star all my points still apply!
". Whether the information is traveling to a brain, simple brain, a ganglia or are on a Brittle Star all my points still apply! "
mhmm, because you are dealing with the evolution of the neuron itself. That IS a related topic and an interesting one. But you should be clear what it is you are talking about. I could suggest googling "Evolution of the neuron" but i don't suppose you would
Damian before attempting to address your points. Seriously (and tell me if I am becoming too sensitive) your response is rude and presumptuous ("Do you really have to stretch" "your agenda" "don't suppose you will") Why? Is it the anonymity of Youtube? I am a science and math teacher maybe because of this I find this kind of exchange not civilised or even normal. Even biologist of the calibre of Soren Lovtrup have serious and doubting questions.
Why? Oh IDK, perhaps I tire of explaining the obvious so often. Perhaps I tire of people with brains and the internet not using them. Perhaps it is me that is too sensitive. Shall we begin anew?
SO, starting with the premise now that you accept evolution, what was your problem?
Ok Damian lets try. You say it is"obvious" but it is not obvious to me. I do not say this to provoke. In fact I have been studying the issue for over 20 years and try as i may it become less obvious by the day! You say I accept evolution but it would be disingenuous of me to concur with this. I have serious doubts and nagging questions about too many parts of it. And i certainly not convinced that the proposed mechanism (Natural selection acting on random mutations) is up to all that is claimed
I think I know what you are asking. Correct me if I have misconstrude. I think you are saying: variation + natural selection will obviously result in Evolution. How would it not happen("how would I stop it") ? Correct?
yes that is how i understood you. Right okay I will start with looking at natural selection. I think it is obvious that such a phenomenom exists and is operating in natural and that the term natural selection is appropriate to name it. But the phenomenom requires more precise and careful treatment . I would distinguish between (at the very least for starters)Genepool Selection, Genepool Protection , Genepool Repair and Mutation Selection .
Next I would clear up any ambiguity about the various uses of the word evolution. Not because I am up to something shady :-) but rather the opposite to get very thing clearly out on the table in full view.
cont....could but this would be under another category Genepool Degradation.
Genepool Selection: Selection acting on different combinations of pre-existing genes and gene alleles with settling about different frequencies(including zero) in different locations/circumstances. Example the Peppered Moths senario.
Damian I think you have four outsiding question I have not responded to as yet. Is it the way I am posting that is causing the comments order to become difficult to follow? How best do I do a run on comment. Lets make sure I address all you points first before adding more.
because the comment are still under 500 replies, if you go to the link below "view all comments", you see our entire discussion. I have missed nothing. That one sentence i quoted was unclear.
Genepool Repair: A situation where a cut off, isolated , population carrying copying error(s) confering blindness or reduced sight is able to still survive and out compete other local species. Then another copying "error" occurs and spreads through population because the "error" was fortuitously a repair that restores (sight) or begins to restore completely previous levels of sight.
"because the "error" was fortuitously a repair that restores (sight)"
This is one of the kinds of things that falls under 'genetic drift" .Picture the genes coding for the new structures vying for simultaneous expression in the offspring of the two populations.
Just a note of caution here: You should attempt to estimate the odds of an inverse mutation on an individual. I'll give you a moment to do that. Please write your estimate in a reply. I wish to address that before proceeding.
Damian roughly as follows. Genepool Protection: Natrual Selection acting as a conservative force. Copying errors that result in misfunction of existing systems and organs etc are not subject to prefered selection being removed or reduced in population at any stage in the life cycle of the organism prior to reproduction. Example lion born blind on African plains due to genetic copying error stands little chance having the error copied and spread through population. Under certain circumstances it
Copying errors that result in misfunction of existing systems and organs etc are not subject to prefered selection being removed or reduced in population at any stage in the life cycle of the organism prior to reproduction.
Sorry, could you put some punctuation in there so that it's not a run on sentence?
Lets look at this comment first as it is the most jarring to me. You are saying "standard NS" is protective and produces nothing new? and is qualitively equivalent to something that does produce something new and one need not make a distinction?
You make it way more complex than it need be. May I illustrate? The only usual distinction made with regard to selection is natural vrs artificial. They are as polar opposites. Artificial selection picks the cream of the crop to breed and tosses the rest. This produces rapid change via very narrow selection criteria. Dogs and horticulture abounds with examples. This eleiminates a lot of variation.
NS on the other hand breeds everything that CAN. That is the ONLY criteria. Variation explodes.
two analogies to illustrate these would be a snipers rifle and a shrapnel grenade. With NS, any gene that happens to be the least bit better in any way has a good chance of filtering into the population. (we're still talking mainly about multicellular life) Sexual reproduction has a very different gene distribution dynamic than bacteria.
Here I consider you in serious error. (1)you are saying no distinction need be made between phenomena that are firstly actually different and as the urgument developes become of great importance. (2) That something is "the usual distinction made" does't not of its self made that right. I should be allowed to draw attention to real differences and name them as they will be necessary later. (3) You endorse a distinction the that is questionable and say things about it the are also questionable.
"You endorse a distinction the that is questionable and say things about it the are also questionable. "
question all you want. It's gonna be real difficult to have this discussion if each of us think the others 'vastly separate distinctions' are apparently indistinguishable.
I'm attempting to allow your set of differences , I merely stated they appeared too subtle for me. The examples you give may help a lot. Use them liberally
Mutation Selection: Natural Selection of a copying "error" that results in a new (never before seen on this ancestal line) nucleotide sequence that is benefial to the organism in prevailing circumstances. This could be a mere tinkering of a preexisting code for a protein.
This is all rough and ready to confer some idea of what i mean. But these are I feel very important distinction to make otherwise there is not enough clarity to have profittable dialog
I agree and a whole whole lot more. In fact no "seeing" really occurs unless there is transmission of information to outside the cell. Notice there is no optic nerve in video. There needs to be a mechanism to start transmission of information. Transmission to cell membrane. Transmission across cell membrane. Mechanism to pick up information on other side. Transmit it to another area. Mechanism to pick it up and interpret it! Without this how can a multicellular oganism be said to see?
Do you really have to stretch that far? A muscled creature (of ANY kind) has a network of nerves to synchronize the contractions. Extension of those to the skin enables reactive responses. Clumps of ganglia enable a learning of a varied set of responses. Larger clumps permit an even larger set of responses. Mind you these do not become disconnected from the muscles of the skin just because it fits your agenda.
It's not so hard to see. Religion evolved even though it is dysfunctional for individual carriers because a society infected with it can achieve a more reasoned and useful morality.
It's like a pH buffer for the zeitgeist--binding the most caustic individuals to a substrate where they are more encumbered, and freeing the rest of the solution to maintain a more balanced environment necessary for the slow chemistry of social progress to take place.
Come on Pagn, it doesn't take a doctorate to come up with an explanation like that. Brewingblues is right. There's a lot of other stuff going on there than light spots and bulging eyeballs.
Is this explanation to be taken seriously? Where is the development of the brain in relation to all of this? And the musculature involved? And numerous other physiological and biological mechanisms? Gross oversimplication and embarrassing flights of fantasy I'm afraid.
Obviously it doesn't need to be enormously complicated to work. Refinements to make it more precise would be incremental changes anyway. The only real leap needed is the initial light-receptive nerves and that's hardly miraculous, lots of molecules interact with light.
Vision is such a massive evolutionary advantage that even a small amount of light sensitivity would be a huge survival factor against sightless competitors.
yes i agree with delux it is a very simple way of explaining evolution in the eye..the eye is so much more complex than that, yet youd think from most of the evolution eye explainations the eye is just a cup with light cells and water in lol
"what a gross simplification of the Visual System"
I think simplicity was the goal. And, by the way, this is YouTube, not Harvard Medical School. That being said, the point was not to say "Look how simple an eye is, it could have totally evolved" but rather to demonstrate how random mutations could be selected naturally to gradually develop into a structure as COMPLICATED as the modern eye, showing that even a structure that complicated is not at all irreducibly complex.
"This video is based on nothing but typical evolutionary assumptions."
Of course making assumptions is not scientific. The point of this experiment is not to show that eyes definitely did come about via evolution (an assumption), but to outline that it is possible for evolution to account for the eye's existence and complexity (an argument to counter the claim that eyes cannot be explained by evolutionary processes).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"natural selection favored animals with a rounded, transparent layer in their eyes..." wow...lucky that happened. I remember when my buddy luckily evolved a transparent layer that benefited his survival. Oh yeah, and two of them and a brain too.
"Why are there 2 eyes instead of any bigger number?"
Spiders have more than 2 eyes.
"Have there been animals with only 1 eye?"
Yes. There is a genus called Cyclops. They are small fresh water crustaceans that have only one eye.
"Why did the eye evolve on the front side of the head?"
It is more beneficial for an organism to be able to see in the direction in which is it travelling, in most cases. An example of an exception being flounders, with both eyes on one side of their head.
Some thoughts in addition to soulhunger1's answer, having two eyes gives the benefit of showing depth, that is, when they point in the same direction. Fish look two both sides, so vision with depth might have come only later, in primates. Bigger numbers give little added value but cost a lot of energy to maintain.
And changing the basic pattern (in higher animals) of two pairs of extremities, 2 eyes,ears &c., seems to be difficult; the basic pattern has been left intact very long.
the optic nerve could have evolved from cells responsible for touch, if light sensitive cells evolved from skin cells. the optic nerve is just a more advanced version of this. the senses can be redirected. I heard of a device where one can see from pressure on the tounge. there is also a young man who is blind but can SEE through sound like a bat through echolocation, (clicking his toungue, and the sound bouncing off an object forming a sound picture in his visual cortex) like bats and dolphins.
I love this video. No longer can creationism nuts spout the line "the eye is too complex to have been formed through natural selection" go science! go reality! bye bye creepy old man in the sky! lol
what !!!!!!! what a shame video how can U suppose so ! ARE YOU SERIOUS OR MAKING AN ADVERT FOR VIDEO GAME ~ PLEASE DONT TAKE A genius ROLE AND TELL ME AM STOPID > NO AM RATIONAL AND THESE STUFF ARE IMAGINARY MADE BY POEPLE WHO THINK THEY STUDY
« what !!!!!!! what a shame video how can U suppose so ! ARE YOU SERIOUS OR MAKING AN ADVERT FOR VIDEO GAME ~ PLEASE DONT TAKE A genius ROLE AND TELL ME AM STOPID > NO AM RATIONAL AND THESE STUFF ARE IMAGINARY MADE BY POEPLE WHO THINK THEY STUDY »
@eshoo8000 no, you're right. it's much more likely that a magical man in the sky who has never once manifested in our reality zapped eyeballs into existence when he did the same with everything else. only strange thing is how does a PERFECT and ALL KNOWING deity create an eyeball that is wired upside down?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is the most ridiculous video I have seen in my life. A patch of skin, becoming a human eye. What horrific science this is. This is even worst than 2nd or 3rd century attempts at rational. He just jumps in the most chimp-like manner.
He was something like - there was skin it startd being tender and soft after million of years it grew because it had an evolution potential gradually it became a penis with a constricted opening. Thats really exatcly how the penis evolution must proceed!!!!
No, no! I spoke to soon, the best line is at the end when he says "That is really exactly the way eye evolution must proceed." IE: This is the only way to preserve my untestable faith based scientific conjecture and otherwise you've got me. He never explains the interaction of the other 25+ components that makes the modern eye what it is, and how they all have to be where they are in evolution for anything to work right. Optic nerve anyone?
KeezeeD, The optic nerve was attached to the original 'eye spot', which may have been sensitive to other stimuli such as heat or touch. It is A NERVE.
Comment removed
archilles1195 1 week ago
I don't know who you are. If you're looking for facts, I can tell you that I have many. What I do have are a particular set of papers. Papers written over very long and prestigious careers in science. Papers that are a nightmare to people like you. If you shut up, sit down, and listen to what these incredible individuals have to say, that will be the end of it. I will not lecture you, I will not ridicule you. But if you don't...I will lecture you. I WILL ridicule you. AND I WILL TEACH YOU.
DivByZeroProductions 1 week ago
@DivByZeroProductions Good luck....
archilles1195 1 week ago
Do you evo's think that the steam engine was modified over the years with tiny incremental steps until the final step resulted in an internal combustion engine with a carburetor, cam shaft and valves etc, seeing as they both use a piston. There are MASSIVE leaps from one DESIGN to another, these leaps are left for the evo to construct in his own mind. The human eyes have multiple systems that needed to evolve simultaneously, without any advantage for NS to favour it. Evolution is pseudoscience.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@Aeolistify The evolutionists said the eyes co-evolved with the codes and signals, optic nerves, and the visual cortex. You can't question or argue against it because evolution is a fact so it must happen, no matter how absurd the logic is.
hisham031170 1 month ago
This is suggesting that all the eye started out as was a patch of light-sensitive cells. And that slowly evolved into eyes, due to natural selection. But it forgets that there is so much more to the eye. Even the basest form of eye would have required a means of transmitting the signals to the brain. And that means of transmission, by necessity, had to have evolved at the exact same time, otherwise that patch of light-sensitive cells would have been utterly useless to the creature possessing it.
Aeolistify 1 month ago
This guy is somwhwat insane, total unscientific Tripe.
otaku8489 2 months ago
I don't get it, how exactly does this show that an eye evolved? Not that I'm trying to inject bias or anything, but all I see is a guy showing designs of different eyes for different animals....
telejelly 2 months ago
@telejelly If you watch and pay attention, you'll find that they are going through the various stages of development. One argument against evolution is that the eye is irreducibly complex, they showed that it isn't and showed how the different stages build up. we went from a primitive eye to a modern eye.
however, the information content in this video is pathetic, you'd do well to look it up further to understand.
JagermeisterDetox 2 months ago
Comment removed
pegasusfreedom 2 months ago
How could a "primitive eye spot" or a flat patch of light-sensitive skin evolve? Isn't IT irreducibly complex?
ThoroughbredofSin 3 months ago in playlist Evolution Explained
@ThoroughbredofSin eh... Watch the vid?
d007ization 2 months ago
No wonder this has so many DISLIKES
It more evo-religious anti-science!!!
DisprovingEvolution 3 months ago
Yup my pc not same as 20 years ago... Because a DESIGNER built a better one :-). The pc is a alternitive of a organism im using it to see if you can get it in your corrupt athiest mind that evolution is wrong. Yes your correct the eye did not form out of nothing which is why it did not evolve. It was made by a divine creator. If the universe was not finly tuned then the chances of our planet being at the exact point in the milky way for us to exist is negligable.
BigCalSuth 3 months ago
Nice wee experimental video but... It like a 1:1000000000 chance that random selection would form a eye is it not? Just like the fine tuning of the universe there is like 1:1000000000 chance if that happening. So some of you believe random assprtments created all this? Let me put it another way:- if you believe randome parts came together and formed a microsoft pc then kl :-) but impossible without a creator
BigCalSuth 4 months ago
@BigCalSuth
What are your variables? An eye didn't form out of nothing. There was a gradual change of forms. Ergo..it's like: 1:1, the odds. "fine tuning"; there is no such thing. Uncertainty principle makes sure of that.
There's a very unlikely chance to win the lottery and yet, some people win it.
Yes, RANDOM mutations originate the traits. which are subject to natural selection.
A pc is inanimated matter, not a living organism. Plus the pc you have today is not the same pc of 20 years ago.
transtlantic 3 months ago
The whole vision system is not just an eye, you also have parts like the optic nerve, primary and secondary visual cortex, and occipital lobe all these systems have to work flawlessly or you have no vision. Extreme chemical cascades are also present, and then reset. Face it the eye never evolved, it was created by a mighty God.
RespectMyHate 4 months ago 2
@RespectMyHate +1
archilles1195 4 months ago
Watching this because of Bio AP
michael1o7 6 months ago
@michael1o7 nigggggga
UMHurricanesNick 6 months ago
@michael1o7
MHS
4pandarowr4 6 months ago
It's so easy to argue for evolution on the internet; most creationists aren't intelligent enough to even use computers so we get free reign.
kweechy 6 months ago
he is not a tame lion
TheSiggyMan6 9 months ago
The eye is useless by itself. What about all the systems that are needed to support the eye and nourish the eye?
What good is an eye without a signal transmission system to a signal decoder, that is something to interpret the signals so that organism can respond to the image?
The eye is part of a visual system, all of whose parts must be in place.
zaxineohp 1 year ago
@zaxineohp Are you sure you watched to video? Re watch it.
If you pay attention, put your biases aside, and examine what is being said critically, you'll realise it's completely viable. No one is saying an eye popped up from nowhere the way we have them. The reason this creationist arguement seems to work is that it's irreducably, as you say. Unfortunately, that's wrong, the video explains it very well. Light sensitive skin is *not* an eye and shows how complexity CAN be reduced.
Krazed2Kraze 1 year ago
@Krazed2Kraze The video talks about the evolution of the eye apart from a complete visual system. I didn't say anything about the eye being irreducibly complex. What I am saying is that the eye is part of a vision system. The most important part of the system is the organ that interprets the visual information from the eye and alters the behavior of the organism. An eye without that is useless.
Would you buy a camera that wouldn't allow you to see the pictures you took?
zaxineohp 1 year ago
@zaxineohp Actually @Krazed2Kraze should rewatch the video.
archilles1195 4 months ago
@zaxineohp
"The eye is part of a visual system, all of whose parts must be in place."
And all of whose parts similarly evolved from simple forms.
This video explains simply the eyeball, but that's not to say the nervous system isn't undergoing the same transitions. You start with photo receptors and a crude sensory system, everything
kweechy 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evilution of the EYE. Where is all the Cyclops skulls? Why did 2 eyes evolve insted of just 1 or 5. What about all the protection it has, being slightly inset in the skull, with eye lashes to help keep out foreign particles and the eye brows to help prevent sweat from getting in them? Along with a system that keeps it lubricated? Oh yah, how did all the different colors of the iris evolve too?
ironman197268 1 year ago
major problems when speaking against it. When someone says the theory's garbage, those who adhere to it will simply present those aspects of the theory for which they have evidence for, in an an attempt to get you to accept the entire thing.
robdmccoy 1 year ago
What fools these mortals be. It's videos like these that make me wanna hit my head against the wall in frustration. This is nothing more than a fairytale dreamt up by someone who desperately wants to concoct a story to dismiss God. You know the whole message behind evolution is that we don't need a creator, we evolved into the complex beings that we by ourselves. Stupidity.
robdmccoy 1 year ago
@robdmccoy Except that the video mentions nothing about religion or God. It simply states the series of steps by which the complex human eye came to evolve by stating intermediate steps and identifying where those intermediate steps are still present in the natural world. There is no "message behind evolution" other than... things evolve. It's not a fairytale if there is documented evidence for it and the evidence can be organized to make a claim. That's a scientific theory.
MPS186282 1 year ago
@MPS186282
This video doesn't have to mention anything about God or religion. The fact that the idea is put forth is more than enough to discern it's underlying message. You see, if you eliminate a creator than you have to come up with another reason as to how we came about. This silly idea is an attempt at doing just that. There's also something that needs to be mentioned. ONe must understand that certain parts of the theory are true while other parts are clearly false. This presents a....
robdmccoy 1 year ago
@robdmccoy There is nothing to be implied about the video other than complex eyes evolved from more simple ones. Evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, so there is no need to "eliminate a creator." One could believe that a god set life into motion and evolution took over from there. No part of evolution I know of is false. All components have been documented and proven. If you could, please tell me one of these false parts of the theory you claim exist.
MPS186282 1 year ago
existed…yes yes yes the reason why they say it took millions of years is because they cant prove it since human observation is only about 100 200 years. And no eye has evolved in our science history that we can look at and say YES! it’s a fact that eyes have evolved. You atheist have intelligence and cant even create a peanut yet you expect me to believe a eye came together without intelligence and s master mind, nothing but delusion.
pamuk7 1 year ago
@MPS186282 If it didn’t come by its self then it has a master mind behind it thank you exactly our point.
You cant prove that these eyes evolved from simpler ones since it has never been observed. Evolution does believe that living matter came from inorganic matter or else you would be saying living matter always
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 "Evolution does believe that living matter came from inorganic matter" No, it doesn't. That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution makes no claims to the origin of life. You clearly do not know what evolution is, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. Please do some research and find out what evolution actually states before attempting to disprove it.
MPS186282 1 year ago
@MPS186282 ok since i dont understand evolution can you tell us if life did not emerge from non living matter where did living matter come from?
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 That is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. The two theories are completely different. Evolution simply states that after life emerged, it diversified and changed, regardless of whether a god gave rise to life or if it sprang up spontaneously. The former option is how religious people view evolution. God created life, and evolution diversified it. Religious people often do not believe in abiogenesis because this WOULD deny a God in most ways. Evolution itself, however, does not.
MPS186282 1 year ago
@pamuk7 For the record, we're not made up of living matter as if we had some strange substance in us that can only be found in us, if you look at the top ~5 or so most prevalent forms of matter in the universe, we happen to also mostly be made of those (eg. Carbon). Coincidence? I think not. We are made of star stuff, -Sagan
Oh, and evolution has *NOTHING* to do with how life came about, sorry. At least you're honest about not knowing much about evolution unlike some other people I know >.>
Krazed2Kraze 1 year ago
what a stupid video. If this guy thinks a eye just evolved on its own with no designer he is basically saying a kodak camra just came together by its self. This guy is nuts built on just assumption..and no proof, yeh there proof is: it took millions years to happen. Can they prove it no..lol
pamuk7 1 year ago
@pamuk7 It's not "basically saying" that a camera came together by itself, it's saying that complex eyes evolved from simpler ones. Evolution makes claims regarding organic creatures that can reproduce and pass on genes. It does not make claims regarding inorganic objects. And there is proof for evolution. The video gives specific examples of where primitive eyes are present. So yes, it did take millions of years, and yes, they can prove it.
MPS186282 1 year ago
congrats! You talked about HOW it COULD have happened. Now prove that it DID happen.
typical evolutionist stupidity. They don't know the definition of PROOF. Talking about how something could have happened, is not the same as proving that it did happen.
22complexity 1 year ago
@22complexity It's not enough that most of these stages are still present in living organisms, as well as ordered by complexity along the phylogenetic tree?
What kind of evidence would you accept that could convince you evolution is real?
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@tarrin4ever #1 You address them as STAGES. Only in your mind are there any stages. There just different parts
#2 What would i accept as evidence?? you would have to show me a Morphological change in a creature that lasted for more than a few generations and was beneficial. morphological change equels the form AND structure of a creature. It would have to get through the 3 known layers of DNA error corrections. This is highly unlikely. But you would have to show me an example to convince me
22complexity 1 year ago
@22complexity ur pathetic lol fuck off from here if you dont agree
wbspg 1 year ago
@22complexity "God" could have written the bible, now PROVE to me that it did. Your entire claim that the bible is true is dependent on that god wrote the bible, if it didn't write the bible, then anyone can write a book and claim it was written by God and therefore automatically it true.
Andreask93 1 year ago 3
@Andreask93 What???? You know thats an invalid question. There are so many things in this life you believe, but can't prove. I can't prove to you that George Washington existed, but the evidence is overwhelming. I believe that God exists based on evidence. The most complelling evidence is biblical prophecie. You can look it up yourself it's all over the internet. i am not going to site sources because I suspect your older than 12 years of age.
22complexity 1 year ago
@22complexity self fulfilling prophecies is not proof of anything. The old testament is full of prophecies that are fulfilled in the new testament, the only thing this proves is that the guys who wrote the new testament read the old one first. Besides, anyone can make predictions of future, here I'll make one: "Oh, the streets will be littered with dust,ash and death, the lost souls will be in the thousands" Sooner or later, something will happen that matches this description.
Andreask93 1 year ago
@22complexity You can prove that Washington existed because he did, and he left large amounts of physical evidence. From this evidence we can draw the conclusion that he did in fact exist. You can putt all the evidence on a table and prove to me that he existed. The question is if I accept the proof or, if I'll choose to remain willingly ignorant about the existence of Washington the way that creationists choose not to accept the conclusive proof of evolution.
Andreask93 1 year ago 3
@22complexity- Then please explain to me how we came into existence, other than the bible saids it, god did it and I believe it, and then we all just randomly popped into existence. Please show me!
honeyblossom17 1 year ago
@honeyblossom17 I have changed my views a lot since i commented on this video.
22complexity 1 year ago
Comment removed
honeyblossom17 1 year ago
We are evolving now into machines thanks to natural selection. Natural selection decided to go into the directions of metals.
jorgipogi 1 year ago
@jorgipogi seriously, WTF are you talking about? Are you drunk?
Andreask93 1 year ago 2
This is the reason why science is going down hill. These people are all subjective thinker. All they see is evolution and don't realize the other factors that influence science. They talk so much about evolution evolving into all these things and they still can kill a virus in the DNA. ALL BS TO ME.
jorgipogi 1 year ago
I've read about the evolution of the eye in several places, including Prof. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable which gave an extremely detailed description on how the eye could have evolved. Although Dawkins' description was much more detailed than this video, images really help to put things into perspective for you and I'm glad I saw this video because it doesn't leave it down to the imagination how the eye could've evolved and instead gives a step-by-step process using images. Thanks!
joshmaher16 1 year ago
This is the first time I've seen this, actually, but it's awesome! <3
Azremodehar 1 year ago
This vid gets an A+ for creative marketing and a D minus for science content. It's so full conjecturing and theory that it needs Liam Neeson to narrate - just to get it to production.
enoshthecat 2 years ago
@enoshthecat everything starts as guess work. its refining the guess work that makes it science. he gave examples of simple creatures with simple eyes, to more complex creatures with more complex eyes. it may not be how it happened, but its likely that it is. which is as much as you can ask for
HighFlyActionGuy 1 year ago
@enoshthecat They need one bad ass like Liam Neeson to convince people. This man trained Batman, a jedi master, a god Zeus, and the Great Aslan. You dare not listen to him??
archilles1195 4 months ago
creationists give it a break - even Liam Neeson is against u :)
symelian 2 years ago 16
Liam Neeson trained Batman and Obi Wan Kenobi. Evolution wins. :)
zenmastermtl 1 year ago 2
@symelian Liam is a christian, he got paid here.
archilles1195 4 months ago
it seems that an animal with inefficient eyes would become prey rather than a predator.
enoshthecat 2 years ago
That's why the evolution of the eye is believed to have taken a few million of years.
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago 2
What would an Inefficient eye hypothetically look like anyway? would it be like the ocelli of flatworms? would it be a proclivity to sense sunburn through photsensitive chemotaxis like in some mollusks?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
yes, but compared to an animal with no eyesight whatsoever (which would have to be the alternative in your arguement) even the small advantage of little eyesight would be benifical to the organism over the other with no eyesight ...
PrayingEagle 2 years ago 2
keep in mind it has an advantage over its peers, which have even simpler eyes or perhaps none at all.
willyschoonover 2 years ago
Tell that to the bat. It all depends on the overall abilities of the creature. If you can't beat them, run, if you can't run, hide, if you can't hide, breed faster.
ddrddrddrddr 2 years ago
Evolution cares not about your assumptions.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
I saw this in my historical geology course (which also had a unit on biological evolution) and it was pretty enlightening.
vgfmak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What ! !!!! This is funny......
I am a physician and studied the eye at the anatomic and microscopic level . what that man claims is ridiculous. the eye is much more complex than the video shows . If you study it you will laugh at this oversimplification.
Also, Mutations cannot add new structures, not even as simple as this water balloon he added.
rafikgl 2 years ago
If you're a physician, then I certainly don't want you as my physician. What do you prescribe? Prayer?
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would prescribe both medications and prayer. Studies show that those who have faith and pray, heal faster than those who don't
rafikgl 2 years ago
What? Study shows that one that is on medicine will recover regardless if you pray or not. How about NOT prescribing medicine and just 100% prayer. Are you saying man-made drugs are more effective then God-inspired prayer?
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But studies show that the incidence of healing is higher in those who take medicine and pray than those who just take medicine.
And, God never told us not to use medicine. He gave us our brains and requires us to use it
rafikgl 2 years ago
medicineonline[dot]com[backslash]news[backslash]12/3953/Study-fails-to-show-healing-power-of-prayer[dot]html
Yeah, it did REAL well.
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago 2
webmd[dot]com[backsla sh]balance[backsla sh]features[backsla sh]probing-power-of-prayer
other studies show a great difference.
rafikgl 2 years ago
"In Harris' study, the length of the hospital stay and the time spent in the cardiac unit were no different for the two groups."
You really need to read your own cited articles. This article said that more investigation is needed, but that's total bullshit because they needed another control. They need one group praying to the Christian God, one without prayer, and one praying to a different god--like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
thebuzdar 2 years ago
I think so, and then also praying to a god isn't the only way, which I think is right (you also have fast healing people who don't believe in god). ^^ So maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster-god would work too. XD
XLyanaX1982 2 years ago
@rafikgl a study was also done to show that while people had surgery, those who were not prayed for and those that were prayed for in secret had the same chance/rate of recovery. HOWEVER the patients who knew people were praying for them had more complications.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@DeadFishFactory I'll say that.
iowntwocats 7 months ago
@rafikgl oh yes, the eye is so perfect. only god could of dunnit. why the hell is wired upside down then?
holdenbane 1 year ago
Nice pun in the video description ;0
ancalites 2 years ago
For a scientific explanation and description of the evolution of the eye, go and read a book by Andrew Parker.
The more simplistic explanation you can find on Wikipedia and if you want the details, read the description by Ken Miller, which I like the best.
I simply love the guys clear and concise way of describing complex matters in easy terms.
Anyways, if the eye was so "intelligently" designed, why do we then need glasses?
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
And lets not forget our blind spot.
WatanukiProductions 2 years ago
cillia are not different cells of a multicellular organism. There is no muscle involved. You are experiencing a misobservation of scale.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
"I don't get what you mean by "regeneration". "
if your cells didn't lock into their specialist form regeneration would be the norm.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
"If both muscle contractions and photosynthetic processes were happening in the same cells it would be easier for a connection between photons hitting a pigment molecule and muscle contractions to evolve."
Likely true. But from where life apparently evolve there was not a lot of light. Muscle contractions for rock rooted animals like sea cucumbers predated the use in motile animals. So the nervous system for synchronizing contractions was already in place.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
"I guess one thing would be to make the animal out of all the same type of cell.."
You're forgetting that they are taking the few LEGO parts they have an rearranging them to accomplish different tasks. From the seed, the each daughter cell (be it nerve or bone or what) all have the equipment to be each other kind of cell.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
"Are you saying that the nerves evolved from the muscles"
You have to go back to the beginning. The sponge. The cells of a sponge are each capable of each of the different support jobs. They swicth roles depending on their local envirnment. Among the roles are releasing signal molecules to syncronize contractions(nutrient pumps). I couldn't say how the way our cells get "fixed" (stuck on one function) was beneficial. Repurposing seems like a much better way. Regeneration should be simpler.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Right and once you have what you call decomposition you then need this change that has occured inside the cell to be communicated to outside the cell even if directly to a muscle cell. The parts are increasing in number.
allan3141 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Right and once you have what you call decomposition you then need this change that has occured inside the cell to be communicated to outside the cell even if directly to a muscle cell. The parts are increasing in number.
allan3141 2 years ago
Comment removed
allan3141 2 years ago
Thank you again for sensible reply. I feel we are getting somewhere here. Can the light "sensory organ" be anything less than a multistage mechanism?
allan3141 2 years ago
I do not get you at all here. Was my question, in two parts, clear? Can you explain your answer?
allan3141 2 years ago
Mortison99799: Well in short can a "seeing system" be reduced back to less than a multistage process? Or coming at it the other way, can you make something that sees that is anything less than a mutistage mechanism?
allan3141 2 years ago
Thank for a sensible reply seriously they are being a rarity on here. But I really do not see that this addresses my points. Whether the information is traveling to a brain, simple brain, a ganglia or are on a Brittle Star all my points still apply!
allan3141 3 years ago
". Whether the information is traveling to a brain, simple brain, a ganglia or are on a Brittle Star all my points still apply! "
mhmm, because you are dealing with the evolution of the neuron itself. That IS a related topic and an interesting one. But you should be clear what it is you are talking about. I could suggest googling "Evolution of the neuron" but i don't suppose you would
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Damian before attempting to address your points. Seriously (and tell me if I am becoming too sensitive) your response is rude and presumptuous ("Do you really have to stretch" "your agenda" "don't suppose you will") Why? Is it the anonymity of Youtube? I am a science and math teacher maybe because of this I find this kind of exchange not civilised or even normal. Even biologist of the calibre of Soren Lovtrup have serious and doubting questions.
allan3141 3 years ago
Why? Oh IDK, perhaps I tire of explaining the obvious so often. Perhaps I tire of people with brains and the internet not using them. Perhaps it is me that is too sensitive. Shall we begin anew?
SO, starting with the premise now that you accept evolution, what was your problem?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Ok Damian lets try. You say it is"obvious" but it is not obvious to me. I do not say this to provoke. In fact I have been studying the issue for over 20 years and try as i may it become less obvious by the day! You say I accept evolution but it would be disingenuous of me to concur with this. I have serious doubts and nagging questions about too many parts of it. And i certainly not convinced that the proposed mechanism (Natural selection acting on random mutations) is up to all that is claimed
allan3141 3 years ago
Well then by all means , perhaps you can clear up a little difficulty i have. How exactly would you stop evolution?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I think I know what you are asking. Correct me if I have misconstrude. I think you are saying: variation + natural selection will obviously result in Evolution. How would it not happen("how would I stop it") ? Correct?
allan3141 3 years ago
no.
{Reproduction with Variation - selection } repeat yeilds evolution.
Yes, how could it not ?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
yes that is how i understood you. Right okay I will start with looking at natural selection. I think it is obvious that such a phenomenom exists and is operating in natural and that the term natural selection is appropriate to name it. But the phenomenom requires more precise and careful treatment . I would distinguish between (at the very least for starters)Genepool Selection, Genepool Protection , Genepool Repair and Mutation Selection .
allan3141 3 years ago
Next I would clear up any ambiguity about the various uses of the word evolution. Not because I am up to something shady :-) but rather the opposite to get very thing clearly out on the table in full view.
allan3141 3 years ago
I postpone reply untill you clarify those points.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Damian\; Cool that seems fair. But I need to sleep now so clarify tomorrow if that's ok.
allan3141 3 years ago
cont....could but this would be under another category Genepool Degradation.
Genepool Selection: Selection acting on different combinations of pre-existing genes and gene alleles with settling about different frequencies(including zero) in different locations/circumstances. Example the Peppered Moths senario.
allan3141 3 years ago
this is the remainder of the population after selection. What's different about this?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Damian I think you have four outsiding question I have not responded to as yet. Is it the way I am posting that is causing the comments order to become difficult to follow? How best do I do a run on comment. Lets make sure I address all you points first before adding more.
allan3141 3 years ago
because the comment are still under 500 replies, if you go to the link below "view all comments", you see our entire discussion. I have missed nothing. That one sentence i quoted was unclear.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Genepool Repair: A situation where a cut off, isolated , population carrying copying error(s) confering blindness or reduced sight is able to still survive and out compete other local species. Then another copying "error" occurs and spreads through population because the "error" was fortuitously a repair that restores (sight) or begins to restore completely previous levels of sight.
allan3141 3 years ago
"because the "error" was fortuitously a repair that restores (sight)"
This is one of the kinds of things that falls under 'genetic drift" .Picture the genes coding for the new structures vying for simultaneous expression in the offspring of the two populations.
Just a note of caution here: You should attempt to estimate the odds of an inverse mutation on an individual. I'll give you a moment to do that. Please write your estimate in a reply. I wish to address that before proceeding.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Damian roughly as follows. Genepool Protection: Natrual Selection acting as a conservative force. Copying errors that result in misfunction of existing systems and organs etc are not subject to prefered selection being removed or reduced in population at any stage in the life cycle of the organism prior to reproduction. Example lion born blind on African plains due to genetic copying error stands little chance having the error copied and spread through population. Under certain circumstances it
allan3141 3 years ago
Copying errors that result in misfunction of existing systems and organs etc are not subject to prefered selection being removed or reduced in population at any stage in the life cycle of the organism prior to reproduction.
Sorry, could you put some punctuation in there so that it's not a run on sentence?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Example lion born blind on African plains due to genetic copying error stands little chance having the error copied and spread through population.
sorry, that is just standard NS. The relabeling is not needed.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Lets look at this comment first as it is the most jarring to me. You are saying "standard NS" is protective and produces nothing new? and is qualitively equivalent to something that does produce something new and one need not make a distinction?
allan3141 3 years ago
You make it way more complex than it need be. May I illustrate? The only usual distinction made with regard to selection is natural vrs artificial. They are as polar opposites. Artificial selection picks the cream of the crop to breed and tosses the rest. This produces rapid change via very narrow selection criteria. Dogs and horticulture abounds with examples. This eleiminates a lot of variation.
NS on the other hand breeds everything that CAN. That is the ONLY criteria. Variation explodes.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
two analogies to illustrate these would be a snipers rifle and a shrapnel grenade. With NS, any gene that happens to be the least bit better in any way has a good chance of filtering into the population. (we're still talking mainly about multicellular life) Sexual reproduction has a very different gene distribution dynamic than bacteria.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Here I consider you in serious error. (1)you are saying no distinction need be made between phenomena that are firstly actually different and as the urgument developes become of great importance. (2) That something is "the usual distinction made" does't not of its self made that right. I should be allowed to draw attention to real differences and name them as they will be necessary later. (3) You endorse a distinction the that is questionable and say things about it the are also questionable.
allan3141 3 years ago
"You endorse a distinction the that is questionable and say things about it the are also questionable. "
question all you want. It's gonna be real difficult to have this discussion if each of us think the others 'vastly separate distinctions' are apparently indistinguishable.
I'm attempting to allow your set of differences , I merely stated they appeared too subtle for me. The examples you give may help a lot. Use them liberally
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Also please understand I am only interesting in a polite discussion. Please do not read any disrespect into my comments. It simple is not there.
allan3141 3 years ago
Damian clearly I need to justify and explain all the above statements. If it is ok with you I will do so tomorrow.
allan3141 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as you wish
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Damian I have responded ny email as too long for box!
allan3141 2 years ago
and i replied back
damianpoirier 2 years ago
Mutation Selection: Natural Selection of a copying "error" that results in a new (never before seen on this ancestal line) nucleotide sequence that is benefial to the organism in prevailing circumstances. This could be a mere tinkering of a preexisting code for a protein.
This is all rough and ready to confer some idea of what i mean. But these are I feel very important distinction to make otherwise there is not enough clarity to have profittable dialog
allan3141 3 years ago
Well unless it does you have nothing.
allan3141 3 years ago
I agree and a whole whole lot more. In fact no "seeing" really occurs unless there is transmission of information to outside the cell. Notice there is no optic nerve in video. There needs to be a mechanism to start transmission of information. Transmission to cell membrane. Transmission across cell membrane. Mechanism to pick up information on other side. Transmit it to another area. Mechanism to pick it up and interpret it! Without this how can a multicellular oganism be said to see?
allan3141 3 years ago
"Notice there is no optic nerve in video."
Do you really have to stretch that far? A muscled creature (of ANY kind) has a network of nerves to synchronize the contractions. Extension of those to the skin enables reactive responses. Clumps of ganglia enable a learning of a varied set of responses. Larger clumps permit an even larger set of responses. Mind you these do not become disconnected from the muscles of the skin just because it fits your agenda.
Continues=>
damianpoirier 3 years ago
the evolution of the eye is fantastic!
hitterbrehm 3 years ago
It's not so hard to see. Religion evolved even though it is dysfunctional for individual carriers because a society infected with it can achieve a more reasoned and useful morality.
It's like a pH buffer for the zeitgeist--binding the most caustic individuals to a substrate where they are more encumbered, and freeing the rest of the solution to maintain a more balanced environment necessary for the slow chemistry of social progress to take place.
ananiasacts 3 years ago
Come on Pagn, it doesn't take a doctorate to come up with an explanation like that. Brewingblues is right. There's a lot of other stuff going on there than light spots and bulging eyeballs.
maggiemaid77 3 years ago
Is this explanation to be taken seriously? Where is the development of the brain in relation to all of this? And the musculature involved? And numerous other physiological and biological mechanisms? Gross oversimplication and embarrassing flights of fantasy I'm afraid.
brewingblues 3 years ago
Obviously it doesn't need to be enormously complicated to work. Refinements to make it more precise would be incremental changes anyway. The only real leap needed is the initial light-receptive nerves and that's hardly miraculous, lots of molecules interact with light.
Vision is such a massive evolutionary advantage that even a small amount of light sensitivity would be a huge survival factor against sightless competitors.
jbxenia 3 years ago
yes i agree with delux it is a very simple way of explaining evolution in the eye..the eye is so much more complex than that, yet youd think from most of the evolution eye explainations the eye is just a cup with light cells and water in lol
aaugoaa 3 years ago
"what a gross simplification of the Visual System"
I think simplicity was the goal. And, by the way, this is YouTube, not Harvard Medical School. That being said, the point was not to say "Look how simple an eye is, it could have totally evolved" but rather to demonstrate how random mutations could be selected naturally to gradually develop into a structure as COMPLICATED as the modern eye, showing that even a structure that complicated is not at all irreducibly complex.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
what a gross simplification of the Visual System. oh dear.
(sighs).........oh dear.
LimpLoser 3 years ago
"This video is based on nothing but typical evolutionary assumptions."
Of course making assumptions is not scientific. The point of this experiment is not to show that eyes definitely did come about via evolution (an assumption), but to outline that it is possible for evolution to account for the eye's existence and complexity (an argument to counter the claim that eyes cannot be explained by evolutionary processes).
soulhunger1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"natural selection favored animals with a rounded, transparent layer in their eyes..." wow...lucky that happened. I remember when my buddy luckily evolved a transparent layer that benefited his survival. Oh yeah, and two of them and a brain too.
thedaneman22 3 years ago
"wow...lucky that happened."
It's not luck. Natural selection is a nonrandom process. Watch the videos "How Evolution REALLY Works" parts 1 and 2 by cdk007.
"I remember when my buddy luckily evolved ..."
A single organism does not evolve. Evolution takes place over generations, not within lifetimes.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
Not enough information ...
I would like to see the eye evolve together with the head. Or whatever animals had when the eye started to evolve.
Why are there 2 eyes instead of any bigger number? Have there been animals with only 1 eye?
Why did the eye evolve on the front side of the head?
Deliratio 3 years ago
"Why are there 2 eyes instead of any bigger number?"
Spiders have more than 2 eyes.
"Have there been animals with only 1 eye?"
Yes. There is a genus called Cyclops. They are small fresh water crustaceans that have only one eye.
"Why did the eye evolve on the front side of the head?"
It is more beneficial for an organism to be able to see in the direction in which is it travelling, in most cases. An example of an exception being flounders, with both eyes on one side of their head.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
thanks!
Deliratio 3 years ago
Some thoughts in addition to soulhunger1's answer, having two eyes gives the benefit of showing depth, that is, when they point in the same direction. Fish look two both sides, so vision with depth might have come only later, in primates. Bigger numbers give little added value but cost a lot of energy to maintain.
And changing the basic pattern (in higher animals) of two pairs of extremities, 2 eyes,ears &c., seems to be difficult; the basic pattern has been left intact very long.
MrFacet 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing.
Deliratio 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So sad that a lifetime of work is spent on something so ridiculous as this. A complete waste of time.
PtaterFace 3 years ago
You may not realize it- but you are a complete moron.
TheFemaleDurden 3 years ago
And why do you say that?
PagnGodOfWarChnt 3 years ago
Because you just claimed that scientists "waste their life".
As opposed to what? Sitting around, praying to the sky and reading the bible? That's a real waste of time.
Abazigal 2 years ago 2
the optic nerve could have evolved from cells responsible for touch, if light sensitive cells evolved from skin cells. the optic nerve is just a more advanced version of this. the senses can be redirected. I heard of a device where one can see from pressure on the tounge. there is also a young man who is blind but can SEE through sound like a bat through echolocation, (clicking his toungue, and the sound bouncing off an object forming a sound picture in his visual cortex) like bats and dolphins.
VodeoJMC63 3 years ago
I love this video. No longer can creationism nuts spout the line "the eye is too complex to have been formed through natural selection" go science! go reality! bye bye creepy old man in the sky! lol
strutnoodle 3 years ago 3
what !!!!!!! what a shame video how can U suppose so ! ARE YOU SERIOUS OR MAKING AN ADVERT FOR VIDEO GAME ~ PLEASE DONT TAKE A genius ROLE AND TELL ME AM STOPID > NO AM RATIONAL AND THESE STUFF ARE IMAGINARY MADE BY POEPLE WHO THINK THEY STUDY
eshoo8000 3 years ago
« what !!!!!!! what a shame video how can U suppose so ! ARE YOU SERIOUS OR MAKING AN ADVERT FOR VIDEO GAME ~ PLEASE DONT TAKE A genius ROLE AND TELL ME AM STOPID > NO AM RATIONAL AND THESE STUFF ARE IMAGINARY MADE BY POEPLE WHO THINK THEY STUDY »
... Go literacy!
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
@eshoo8000 no, you're right. it's much more likely that a magical man in the sky who has never once manifested in our reality zapped eyeballs into existence when he did the same with everything else. only strange thing is how does a PERFECT and ALL KNOWING deity create an eyeball that is wired upside down?
holdenbane 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the most ridiculous video I have seen in my life. A patch of skin, becoming a human eye. What horrific science this is. This is even worst than 2nd or 3rd century attempts at rational. He just jumps in the most chimp-like manner.
He was something like - there was skin it startd being tender and soft after million of years it grew because it had an evolution potential gradually it became a penis with a constricted opening. Thats really exatcly how the penis evolution must proceed!!!!
faki49 3 years ago
Oh the stupid.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
What?
SkepticalAtheist 3 years ago
« A patch of skin, becoming a human eye. »
Developmentally as well as evolutionary. Go figure.
« What horrific science this is. »
I's just hates them cells! They gimme th'creeps!
« Thats really exatcly how the penis evolution must proceed! »
You have something of a fascination with human male reproductive organs?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
No, no! I spoke to soon, the best line is at the end when he says "That is really exactly the way eye evolution must proceed." IE: This is the only way to preserve my untestable faith based scientific conjecture and otherwise you've got me. He never explains the interaction of the other 25+ components that makes the modern eye what it is, and how they all have to be where they are in evolution for anything to work right. Optic nerve anyone?
KeezeeD 3 years ago
KeezeeD, The optic nerve was attached to the original 'eye spot', which may have been sensitive to other stimuli such as heat or touch. It is A NERVE.
marcluc1988 3 years ago