Evolution of the Eye Part 1

Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the Eye

Part 1

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• creationism
• creation
• atheist
• Richard
• Dawkins
• eye

[sp4zzer]

I'm not gonna argue weither evolution happens with you because you obviousy is not interested in looking ito the facts. If you were you would know as any educated person does that evolution happens. If you truly are interested, I recommend you look into videos by YouTube user DonExodus2, since his videos are very informative, and the 500 letters allowed in comment fields is a tad short to go into the hundred of thousands of pieces of evidence that confirms evolution.

[IlGreven]

Simple: Because they survived to breed, again and agan. That is the only way we have to "PROVE" they're advantageous to their environment. Over many generations, fewer and fewer blind organisms would survive because they didn't have it, until there were none at all. That's as simple as evolution gets. It takes hundreds of generations to see the effect, however. The entirety of written human history has taken place over only about 500 human generations.

[QuestionEvolutionOrg]

@sethblatt Excellent questions. Some more are:

5) How could evolution produce a system that even knows when it is in focus? Let alone the mechanism to focus.

6) How does evolution explain our retinas having the correct cells which create electrical impulses when light activates them?

7) How would evolution produce a system that can interpret electrical impulses and process them into images?

[dnaak]

@doobledod

I wouldn't relegate it to impossibility, but that is the question that does need to be answered.

[sethblatt]

(4) If the eyes had evolved in this way, where did our eye-lids come from, and the tear factor to protect our eyes from dirt and dust?

[sethblatt]

So I just have some questions about what was said. (1) If the eye had evolved in this way, how would the optic nerves find it's way to the right part of the brain and how would the brain know what to do with them? (2) If the eyes had evolved in this way, then why wouldn't we have eyes all over our body and even on our hands? (3) If the eyes had evolved in this way, why would we have two of the exact same eyes, wouldn't they be different?...

[gangster3591]

@sp4zzer ..I might add that No evidence refuting evolution or calling evolution into question has ever been presented. In the 21st century, the fact of evolution is so obvious and so massively supported by evidence that only dullards (mostly people of faith) still deny it

[cctman]

Dawkins is such a farse! He hasn't even begun to discuss the complexities of the actual mechanisms that work in sync in the eye. There are millions of switches and components in the eye if one of them are missing the entire eye is in operable. Not once does he even remotely allude to explaining any of these processes.

[cctman]

So let me get this straight... So somehow hes telling us that a pin whole eye is better for survival then a larger hole? Really so what did those creatures do when their pin hole eye got clogged up from debree trying to run from the predator? Oh crap I can't see I guess I'm dead. Time to start over the evolution process again! How stupid! Hale Dawkins the king of bad fairy tales.

[lravenhill]

everyone of these steps is staight magic. god couldnt have done it but enough time and chance which means nothing it just happens. its nonsencical no matter how brilliant a salesman

[acuriousaffair]

@doobledod .....what?

According to evolution you cannot make a simplified replica of a body part?

You stupid, stupid, stupid person. That is the most complex response i can articulate in my current state of terrified awe.