Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Scientists discover the key to the evolution of the irreducibly complex, intelligently designed vertebrate eye   (brisbanetimes.com.au) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4097 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 08 Dec 2007 at 9:03 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



77 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-12-08 4:46:33 PM  
I want UV eyes. But I'd settle for X-ray vision and a comfortable chair across from the ladies room.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2007-12-08 6:07:04 PM  
Headline on Fark: Scientists discover...

Scientist in article: We've put up a theory...

radioman_: I want UV eyes.

Go for the near-infrared, where women's clothes sometimes become transparent.
 
2007-12-08 6:20:32 PM  
ZAZ: Go for the near-infrared, where women's clothes sometimes become transparent.

Pffft. I bought those in the 70s!

img225.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2007-12-08 6:20:50 PM  
What are the odds that random chance could allow life to figure out that it is a good survival tactic to be able to respond to changes in light?
 
2007-12-08 6:27:50 PM  
oldebayer: What are the odds that random chance could allow life to figure out that it is a good survival tactic to be able to respond to changes in light?

What does random chance have to do with it? Natural selection isn't random chance, and it never has been.
 
2007-12-08 6:39:05 PM  
SphericalTime: What does random chance have to do with it? Natural selection isn't random chance, and it never has been.

Platypus ... that is all.
 
2007-12-08 7:03:50 PM  
*covers ears* LALALA I'm not listening there are some things we can never ever explain evar except with a cop-out excuse like God lalala!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2007-12-08 7:09:19 PM  
Platypus?

ecx.images-amazon.comView Full Size


(This book cover is an accurate depiction of a scene from the book.)
 
2007-12-08 9:02:33 PM  
wyltoknow: *covers ears* LALALA I'm not listening there are some things we can never ever explain evar except with a cop-out excuse like God lalala!
 
2007-12-08 9:05:23 PM  
A University of Queensland (UQ) researcher may have provided the missing link in the evolution of the eye and another nail in the coffin of the theory of intelligent design or creationism.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ~ Charles Darwin

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin
 
2007-12-08 9:12:16 PM  
Bevets: A University of Queensland (UQ) researcher may have provided the missing link in the evolution of the eye and another nail in the coffin of the theory of intelligent design or creationism.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ~ Charles Darwin

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin


For one, Darwin didn't have the ability to study the evolution of the eye like we do now. And I'm curious as to WHEN Lewontin said that.

Also, This might help (new window)
 
2007-12-08 9:13:10 PM  
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg dammit. Link didn't work
 
2007-12-08 9:21:16 PM  
Bevets: A University of Queensland (UQ) researcher may have provided the missing link in the evolution of the eye and another nail in the coffin of the theory of intelligent design or creationism.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ~ Charles Darwin

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin


Smallpox killed billions. In the 20th century alone it's believed that 300-500 million deaths can be attributed to smallpox. Nobody knows how many individuals prayed throughout the centuries for smallpox to be eliminated. All we know is that their prayers were not answered until medical science can to the rescue. Why do I put my trust in science? Because it works, biatches! ~ me
 
2007-12-08 9:21:16 PM  
Bevets: A University of Queensland (UQ) researcher may have provided the missing link in the evolution of the eye and another nail in the coffin of the theory of intelligent design or creationism.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ~ Charles Darwin

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin



Good job pulling the exact same Darwin quotation from the article. This article illustrates why people who subscribe to the theory of evolution are so much more logical than creationists. We have the capacity to look at what we've previously found and question it, build upon it, make it better.
 
2007-12-08 9:21:48 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: SphericalTime: What does random chance have to do with it? Natural selection isn't random chance, and it never has been.

Platypus ... that is all.


Here's a thought: learn to be something other than a farking retard. Read Darwins book. Know the difference in pre and post anti-religion influence Darwin.

The Platypus has evolved to fit whatever niche in the world it fits into. It is no different than the piranha, the cow, or the cockroach. Darwins theory of evolution has never considered your convenience factor, regardless of wether that factor proves or disproves something convenient to your agenda.

I'm sorry that evolution is reduced to a talking point by both sides, and has been polarized to a 'god real!!!!' or 'athiest biatches!!!' standpoint.

I, however, am a theist who thinks intelligent design is farking stupid. There is no such thing. Either evolution exists, or it does not. Intelligent design is an oxymoron, either evolution happens or it does not; just like free will and determined fate are counter forces. Either 'God' (whatever name you want) knows what will/has happened to me, or I have free will. If someone (anyone ever, at all) knows what choices I make, I no longer have free will.
 
2007-12-08 9:25:01 PM  
SphericalTime: What does random chance have to do with it? Natural selection isn't random chance, and it never has been.

Random chance has a little bit to do with genetic mutations.
Natural Selection has to do with which of those mutations result in better survival.
 
2007-12-08 9:29:05 PM  
Evolution mentioned in the article? Bevets will be there...unfortunately.
 
2007-12-08 9:30:59 PM  
Arthur Jumbles: Smallpox killed billions. In the 20th century alone it's believed that 300-500 million deaths can be attributed to smallpox. Nobody knows how many individuals prayed throughout the centuries for smallpox to be eliminated. All we know is that their prayers were not answered until medical science can to the rescue. Why do I put my trust in science? Because it works, biatches! ~ me

Oh! Good job! Blind faith in anything that tells you that blind faith in anything else is wrong is automatically verified!!

You're no better than those black plague survivors who prayed to be saved, and were, and then thought that god (science) could/would do anything!!

I think Bevets is a jackass. I think people should seek an answer on the real/fake dichotomy as they can. I don't think there are any wrong or right answers.

I do think that both sides (theist and antithiest) just try to run screaming flaming 'semi-arguments' into the dark. Neither side does anything but say 'if you don't believe and agree with me 1000% you are going to hell!!!!!'.
 
2007-12-08 9:34:07 PM  
kroonermanblack: Arthur Jumbles: Smallpox killed billions. In the 20th century alone it's believed that 300-500 million deaths can be attributed to smallpox. Nobody knows how many individuals prayed throughout the centuries for smallpox to be eliminated. All we know is that their prayers were not answered until medical science can to the rescue. Why do I put my trust in science? Because it works, biatches! ~ me

Oh! Good job! Blind faith in anything that tells you that blind faith in anything else is wrong is automatically verified!!

You're no better than those black plague survivors who prayed to be saved, and were, and then thought that god (science) could/would do anything!!

I think Bevets is a jackass. I think people should seek an answer on the real/fake dichotomy as they can. I don't think there are any wrong or right answers.

I do think that both sides (theist and antithiest) just try to run screaming flaming 'semi-arguments' into the dark. Neither side does anything but say 'if you don't believe and agree with me 1000% you are going to hell!!!!!'.


Science has verifiable results. Praying does not. It's not blind faith, it's accepting empirical evidence. When it comes down to it, would you rather get a vaccine, or place your hope in prayer?

And for the record, atheists don't think you're going to hell. You're just going to rot in the dirt.
 
2007-12-08 9:36:13 PM  
Aarontology: And for the record, atheists don't think you're going to hell. You're just going to rot in the dirt.

I'm not going to rot in the dirt. I'm going to be cremated and mixed into the plastic that makes womens bicycle seats!
 
2007-12-08 9:38:01 PM  
kroonermanblack: I'm sorry that evolution is reduced to a talking point by both sides, and has been polarized to a 'god real!!!!' or 'athiest biatches!!!' standpoint.

I, however, am a theist who thinks intelligent design is farking stupid. There is no such thing. Either evolution exists, or it does not. Intelligent design is an oxymoron, either evolution happens or it does not; just like free will and determined fate are counter forces. Either 'God' (whatever name you want) knows what will/has happened to me, or I have free will. If someone (anyone ever, at all) knows what choices I make, I no longer have free will.


THIS THIS THIS, ZOMG THIS

I am an atheist. I agree that evolution is a powerful, and the only valid scientific explanation for the wide variety of phenomena (gradation of similarities and differences between organisms at varying levels of organization, biogeography, the fossil record, &c.,) it claims to explain. Neither of these intellectual stances are the reason for the other.
 
2007-12-08 9:39:01 PM  
Article: Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary science, doubted that the eye could have been formed by evolution; creationists have argued that due to the eye's complexity, it could not have formed by evolution.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree," Charles Darwin said in his famous work The Origin of Species.


The author of this article got that quote from the creationists (or possibly from someone else who got it from the creationists). The Darwin quote is extremely out of context as Darwin had no doubt that the eye could be evolved and indeed very strongly showed that eye evolution is plausible.

Indeed what was quoted was followed by: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html#eye
(new window)
 
2007-12-08 9:39:19 PM  
Ed Grubermann: I'm not going to rot in the dirt. I'm going to be cremated and mixed into the plastic that makes womens bicycle seats!

Careful with that. You don't know if you are going to be put in the seat that is used by Penelope Cruz, or the one used by Janet Reno.
 
2007-12-08 9:41:06 PM  
Aarontology: Ed Grubermann: I'm not going to rot in the dirt. I'm going to be cremated and mixed into the plastic that makes womens bicycle seats!

Careful with that. You don't know if you are going to be put in the seat that is used by Penelope Cruz, or the one used by Janet Reno.


Yeah, but either way you're getting pussy, which is much better than hanging out with a bunch of Mormons or burning in hell.
 
2007-12-08 9:47:48 PM  
The platypus looks odd to humans, therefore it fails the natural selection criteria. Lets not look at the facts. I always rejoice when some retard picks one up and regrets it.
 
2007-12-08 9:50:36 PM  
Like this?

i106.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2007-12-08 9:52:21 PM  
Aarontology: Science has verifiable results. Praying does not. It's not blind faith, it's accepting empirical evidence. When it comes down to it, would you rather get a vaccine, or place your hope in prayer?

And the people who prayed to not-die during the black plague, inquisition, or any other random-people-didn't-die-for-reason-whatever would disagree with you. Because it was obviously thier faith in XXYY that kept them from dieing.

Anything has 'verifiable' results if you look hard enough, and want the data to say what you wish it would.
 
2007-12-08 9:54:14 PM  
kroonermanblack: And the people who prayed to not-die during the black plague, inquisition, or any other random-people-didn't-die-for-reason-whatever would disagree with you. Because it was obviously thier faith in XXYY that kept them from dieing.

Anything has 'verifiable' results if you look hard enough, and want the data to say what you wish it would.


I'll take a vaccine that has been proven in labs, and in use over praying to any deity. I could pray that the sun rises tomorrow, and it will happen. That doesn't make prayer responsible for this happening.
 
2007-12-08 9:58:55 PM  
Aarontology
kroonermanblack: And the people who prayed to not-die during the black plague, inquisition, or any other random-people-didn't-die-for-reason-whatever would disagree with you. Because it was obviously thier faith in XXYY that kept them from dieing.

Anything has 'verifiable' results if you look hard enough, and want the data to say what you wish it would.

I'll take a vaccine that has been proven in labs, and in use over praying to any deity. I could pray that the sun rises tomorrow, and it will happen. That doesn't make prayer responsible for this happening.


Whoa, careful there, logic is a dangerous weapon that cannot pierce the mind of those who have none.... In other words, never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
2007-12-08 10:10:52 PM  
Biohazard24: Whoa, careful there, logic is a dangerous weapon that cannot pierce the mind of those who have none.... In other words, never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That's why the Vulcans tried to slow down Earth's progress into warp dive.

/dork
//not ashamed
 
2007-12-08 10:10:52 PM  
Speaking of eye evolution, perhaps Bevets could explain the following.

Most old-world monkeys and apes have tri-color vision which helps them find food they would not otherwise see. However there is one exception among these "higher" primates: the owl monkey which is nocturnal. Color vision is worthless for nocturnal creatures. And sure enough, owl monkeys lack full color vision. However checking DNA, the SWS opsin gene which we use for our color vision exists in the owl monkey genome but has a mutation in the middle of it. A TGG codon which codes for the amino acid tryptophan mutated to a TGA codon which is a stop codon. This completely destroys the functionality of the gene. The mutation did no harm to the monkey since it does not need the gene anyways.

Humans and other "higher" primates that have tri-color vision which is used for finding food. These creatures no longer need as good a sense of smell. And thus they have hundreds of olfactory genes which have been destroyed by mutation. Funny how chimps and humans have olfactory "genes" broken by the exact same mutation since the number of ways mutations can break a gene are extremely numerous. That that is the case over and over again is so unlikely (in the neighborhood of those fake abiogenesis probabilities that Bevets is fond of) if common descent is not true. Thus it is powerful evidence for common descent.

One can read all about this in Sean B. Carroll's The Making of the Fittest (new window)

Of course Bevets will not read this because he is too scared to. And bear in mind that book has many more examples. And one could very easily point to many, many more.
 
2007-12-08 10:10:56 PM  
Aarontology: I think Bevets is a jackass. I think people should seek an answer on the real/fake dichotomy as they can. I don't think there are any wrong or right answers.

You're wrong.
 
2007-12-08 10:12:24 PM  
Evolution requires two opposing processes: emergence of genetic variation and reduction of genetic variation.

An increase in genetic variation occurs through several processes, including point mutation, gene duplication, genome duplication, recombination and lateral gene transfer. These processes are often treated as random even though in practice they really aren't.

Once variation emerges, it will either be fixed in or purged from the population. If the variation is beneficial, it will be fixed in the population by positive selection. If deleterious, it will be purged by negative selection. If the variation does not effect fitness, i.e. it's neutral with regards to selection, it will be fixed in or purged from the population by random genetic drift. The balance between genetic drift and selection ultimately determines the fate of variation in a population. However, because the environment is constantly changing, variation which may provide no benefit under one set of environmental conditions could be beneficial under a different set.

Other factors can also come into play (i.e. balancing selection), but that's the gist of it.
 
2007-12-08 10:21:56 PM  
Bevets = best troll evar.
 
2007-12-08 10:23:31 PM  
Arthur Jumbles: You're wrong.

That wasn't my post dude. I was just quoting someone. I appreciate the snark though. Give yourself a point.
 
2007-12-08 10:36:57 PM  
dr_awkward: Bevets = best troll evar.

The guy goes through way too much effort (ie., the website) to be a troll. He truly is an ignorant asshat trying to spread his ignorance to others. So, in true bevets fashion, I give you the following out of context quote:

"If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." - T. H. Huxley
 
2007-12-08 10:50:55 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom:

Platypus ... that is all.


Dude, they have poison farking spikes, they can look as silly as they want. Totally appropriately adapted for their environment.

TheMysteriousStranger: Speaking of eye evolution, perhaps Bevets could explain the following.

Most old-world monkeys and apes have tri-color vision which helps them find food they would not otherwise see. However there is one exception among these "higher" primates: the owl monkey which is nocturnal. Color vision is worthless for nocturnal creatures. And sure enough, owl monkeys lack full color vision. However checking DNA, the SWS opsin gene which we use for our color vision exists in the owl monkey genome but has a mutation in the middle of it. A TGG codon which codes for the amino acid tryptophan mutated to a TGA codon which is a stop codon. This completely destroys the functionality of the gene. The mutation did no harm to the monkey since it does not need the gene anyways.

Humans and other "higher" primates that have tri-color vision which is used for finding food. These creatures no longer need as good a sense of smell. And thus they have hundreds of olfactory genes which have been destroyed by mutation. Funny how chimps and humans have olfactory "genes" broken by the exact same mutation since the number of ways mutations can break a gene are extremely numerous. That that is the case over and over again is so unlikely (in the neighborhood of those fake abiogenesis probabilities that Bevets is fond of) if common descent is not true. Thus it is powerful evidence for common descent.

One can read all about this in Sean B. Carroll's The Making of the Fittest (new window)

Of course Bevets will not read this because he is too scared to. And bear in mind that book has many more examples. And one could very easily point to many, many more.


Obviously god uses copy/paste and then edits out the bits he doesn't want in each organism. We're not a doodle of a bored kid god in the back of his math class-- we're a sprite comic.

//While this explains why he's apparently unhealthily obsessed with our fate, it also indicates that we should start worshipping in the basement of our parents' church, as that's closer to his true home.
 
2007-12-08 11:07:33 PM  
Bevets: Blah blah blah blah blah out of context quote blah blah blah outright lie blah blah blah cut and past nonsense blah blah blah more lies blah blah blah blah.


Translated for accuracy.
 
2007-12-08 11:17:30 PM  
adulescentulus carnifex: dr_awkward: Bevets = best troll evar.

The guy goes through way too much effort (ie., the website) to be a troll. He truly is an ignorant asshat trying to spread his ignorance to others. So, in true bevets fashion, I give you the following out of context quote:

"If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." - T. H. Huxley


i'm just sayin...he's been around for how long, and is by this time his own self-propogated cliche, yet there's still a line of willing participants waiting to throw in their 2 cents every single time he appears. seriously, we need a "don't feed the bevets" sign.
 
2007-12-08 11:18:26 PM  
I gotta say, bevets has finally convinced me! Each of the quotes he used was like a tiny hammer that has chipped away years of indoctrination. I am no longer an evolutionist, and firmly believe that evolutionism is just something people talk about to keep god out of their brainwaves.
 
2007-12-08 11:22:42 PM  
lambelly: I gotta say, bevets has finally convinced me! Each of the quotes he used was like a tiny hammer that has chipped away years of indoctrination. I am no longer an evolutionist, and firmly believe that evolutionism is just something people talk about to keep god out of their brainwaves.

I owe you a farkin' beer, my friend. That was awesome.
 
2007-12-08 11:34:40 PM  
all i can say is this article summed up the main reason why i respect evolutionists more than creationists

FTA: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree," Charles Darwin said in his famous work The Origin of Species.

like all science, evolutionists are skeptical of their own work, and will usually admit when they haven't figured something out yet and leave it open for investigation. unlike creationists who see a gap in their evidence, and instead of saying "i don't know", instead say "a miracle occurs here" (which i find to be an equivalent to "here be dragons")
 
2007-12-08 11:40:05 PM  
How does a transparent humor develop in the indentation?

This article isn't a breakthrough, though it does bridge a gap. Also, I love the whole vaccines-are-better-than-God meme that's been going on. Keep on going!

Next step: Propose a deal in which athiests could use only medicine and thiests could use, at most, simple herbs and prayer.
 
2007-12-08 11:50:14 PM  
I always get annoyed when creatonists come up with that out of context Darwin quote about the eye.

Bevets forgot the second part of Darwin's quote, as Darwin continues:

-------------------------
........Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
-------------------------


He then goes on with three more pages describing plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes.
 
2007-12-08 11:52:42 PM  
imperiusiv: Also, I love the whole vaccines-are-better-than-God meme that's been going on

I'd like to take credit for that one. Unless it was started in another thread previous to this one.
 
2007-12-08 11:58:03 PM  
Anyone that uses the terms evolutionists or evolutionism needs to be dragged out into the street and shot. Those suffixes imply an irrational belief in evolution. The term you're looking for is SCIENCE, biatch!
 
2007-12-09 12:02:15 AM  
kroonermanblack: Snowflake Tubbybottom: SphericalTime: What does random chance have to do with it? Natural selection isn't random chance, and it never has been.

Platypus ... that is all.

Here's a thought: learn to be something other than a farking retard. Read Darwins book. Know the difference in pre and post anti-religion influence Darwin.

The Platypus has evolved to fit whatever niche in the world it fits into. It is no different than the piranha, the cow, or the cockroach. Darwins theory of evolution has never considered your convenience factor, regardless of wether that factor proves or disproves something convenient to your agenda.

I'm sorry that evolution is reduced to a talking point by both sides, and has been polarized to a 'god real!!!!' or 'athiest biatches!!!' standpoint.

I, however, am a theist who thinks intelligent design is farking stupid. There is no such thing. Either evolution exists, or it does not. Intelligent design is an oxymoron, either evolution happens or it does not; just like free will and determined fate are counter forces. Either 'God' (whatever name you want) knows what will/has happened to me, or I have free will. If someone (anyone ever, at all) knows what choices I make, I no longer have free will.


A cat has free will. You know that you will wash the cat. You successfully wash the cat even though it fights back but it still has free will.
 
2007-12-09 12:25:23 AM  
Shazam999: I'm disappointed in Bevets. Usually he's in these by the second post.

Not anymore. And it doesn't matter; he will jack the entire thread just by saying anything. Now that's power.
 
2007-12-09 12:31:02 AM  
what the hell is a missing link and why is it important? evolution happened.
 
2007-12-09 12:36:13 AM  
DNRTFA.

The human eye in all it's glory is really flawed in many ways. The brain infers the majority of perception based upon hints from the raw inputs the eyes provide.

If you review all the popular on-line examples of optical illusions, you can see that color, motion, face recognition are all parts of augmentation systems evolved to compensate for limited input.

Simple brain injuries can severely impact vision because by imparing one system its dysfunction can trow everything out of whack.

Compared to other vertabrates, human eyes are pretty mediocre. It's our larger brains which make up the majority of the system.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.