How did eyes appear?

How did eyes appear?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=24m
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1497204190824.webm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
gitgud.io/nixx/WebMConverter
rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They've evolved at least three times, in humans the eye began as a simple patch of photosensitive cells that allowed an animal to know when it was light.

Why are half the posts on Veeky Forums anti-science Christians posting anti-evolution and flat Earth shit?

Though, I suppose every board is trolls trolling trolls, so... Par for the course hereabouts.

Because mods won't ban /pol/ poster from posting outside their shit hole and a lack of math captchas

I think /pol/ has infiltrated the janitor/mod pool.

Actually just got banned three days ago when someone started one of those "kill all the darkies cuz of their low IQ" threads, and I pointed out that whites aren't exactly on top of racial IQ the pyramid either. ...yet the thread OP kept right on going afterwards.

somehow i doubt your version. post the archived thread

If our eyes are not real how can anything be real?

...

Fuck I love mollusk and mammal convergent evolution.

Gives me a scienceboner when analyzing homoplaisy desu, because of how much it tells you about the development aspect of evolution.

why don't all our cells photoreceptors?

Cuz we aren't Argus...

Those cells are doing other things. I mean, imagine trying to sit down if all your skin was eyes. Imagine allergies. Imagine the Visine shortages.

>Veeky Forums

What always puzzled me about genetics is this: How, for example, can DNA "remember" a slight depression in the photoreceptor cell layer that gets passed on? How can the fine structure of the body be encoded in the crude sequence of DNA?

Why do bugs have many eyes and how do they see with 3, 4, 5, 10 eyes all around the head?

Why do all vertebrates have 2 eyes?

because their common ancester had two eyes, too

Why did their common ancestors have two eyes?

>pol with dates

Three eyes, user. Vertebrates have 3 eyes.

Very basic explanation:
chemical released from cells control differentiation and rate of growth of cells along the diffusiong gradient.
These chemicals are either proteins or other molecules synthesized with enzymes.

many, many genes all subtly regulating each other's function. Even if particular genes can only have relatively crude changes, the combination with many other genes allows for incredible finesse

youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=24m

>Oh yeah there's this cavity and st-
>Suddenly whole refractive lens out of nowhere
>Iris and cornea out of nowhere
Yeah, fuck off. This is why I can't take evolution seriously.

Because depth perception is a useful skill that contribute to survival.
The reason you don't have more than that is because the freak who ended up with three eyes didn't out-reproduce the Chad with two.

This. There were fish with 2 black spots on the top of their head made of light sensitive proteins

Or if you have a double digit IQ
>It's the ultimate proof of god because I find it difficult to grasp

How did people with two eyes all agree that staring at someone with both of them is rude and then still develop some small subset of people who think staring is ok as long at it's only with one eye?

Eyes are thought to have independently evolved at least hundereds of times.

>Oh yeah this is whit-
>Suddenly grey out of nowhere
>Now it's black

Gradients are such a fucking joke, you'd have to be sub 80 iq to believe in them.

>you'd have to be sub 80 iq to believe in them.
My IQ is 83, it's a good result, 83% of good answers.

what is it with brainlets and their need to always come up with the most retarded comparisons and analogies?

How can our eyes be real when mirrors aren't?

This sort of mystical explanation offers no explanation at all, and allows no understanding.

>How can the fine structure of software, pictures, music, movies, ... be encoded in the crude sequence of ones and zeroes?

Bad analogy. These sequences are themselves meaningless; all the information is created at the site of interpretation. The partition into bytes, the decoding and processing all happens on a higher level than the storage medium itself. You couldn't describe a bit-encoded movie using the bits alone, you also need information about the interpreting device to have a sufficient and complete system.

What is the corresponding system in life, and how can its origin be explained and understood? If one is given a strand of DNA, is it a sufficient description of the organism it came from?

God created them in his image

Also because three eyes doesnt really provide enough advantage over two eyes to justify the extra energy/nutrient expenditure on it.

The corresponding system in life is chemistry.

Some bugs have many eyes, why?

its literally like machine code. if you have a metric fuckton of it, it eventually gets very detailed in finesse. Imagine 8 bit v. 16 bit v. 3d video games

It's a compound eye... One such primitive photocell wouldn't cut it.

As for spiders, they are using multiple compound eyes to detect a wider range of movement and detail.

This isn't necessary when you have eyes that are, in and of themselves, several times larger than an entire insect.

Plus, it seems many different species come to this same functional mechanism through different directions.

If an omnipotent god did this, it'd have to be an extremely uncreative one, doing the same shit, over and over again, often in fundamentally flawed ways with no foresight as to future problems they may cause... Such as mistaking electric light bulbs for the sun.

They have more eyes because they have a need to see more shit. They are almost exclusively prey, the better they are at avoiding being eaten the more DNA they pass on to the next generation. As for how do they see? Thats a stupid fucking question. Their brains and eyes developed with eachother, we cant possibly imagine what they see because we cant experience it through their nervous system. I will give you the broad generalization. They see nearly 360 degrees around themselves and everything above themselves, probably not in color (just a guess could be wrong), and probably not very far.

I love how this image just jumps over the gaps between eyes of different complexity.
>a refractive lens just appeared bro!
>millions of years can do that
Yes let's just ignore how many things have to go right for that refractive lens to first appear and then work correctly.

I'm not a creationist btw, I just hate how some people simplify shit they know nothing about. Evolution is like creationism for atheists.

...

Because having thousands of development level pictures of the refractive lens would be pointless. Mutations probably caused cells to take on that function and with every generation, the cells became more like a lens because the organisms with it lived to reproduce more than the ones without. Why is the math and science board full of morons?

But you agree that the human eye was overevolved, right? Let's be honest, there's no need (in nature) for humans to have this good of eyesight. No other animal besides maybe birds of prey have this perfect of daytime eyesight. Everything down to eyelash placement and tear production is a bit excessive for a primate.

Could monkeys swing from trees well without binocular vision?

What is the need to swing from trees? Simply feeling around the trunk and branches will get you where you need to go safely.

Monkeys need a way to travel from tree to tree efficiently. Besides, there are predators on the ground as well as eagles big enough to carry off a monkey. If it weren't for binocular vision, you wouldn't exist.

>Mutations probably caused cells to take on that function and with every generation, the cells became more like a lens because the organisms with it lived to reproduce more than the ones without.
You're pulling this out of your ass, no sources (not that they exist).
Have any studies been done on the exact mechanisms that lead to something like a refractive lens? The exact mutations that could occur? A statistical analysis of their likelihood?

>tfw your post gets deleted because autistic jannie can't deal with criticism of his beloved evolution theory
I didn't know science was about desperately clinging to an idea and ignoring and removing all criticism, seems more like religion to me.

good. maybe you redditors will fuck off now.

OK then what's your explaination smart-ass? You obviously can't grasp the concept of evolution. Go back to grade school.

He's a troll, long term evolution has literally been proven and observed
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
creationists are still breaking down bec this

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>en.m.wikipedia.org
>phoneposting
Opinion discarded.

confirmed troll
also myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

E Coli are the "gotta go fast" of evolution:
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1497204190824.webm

Worse than leaving hawaiian fruit flies alone with bananas, and then trying to feed them something else three days later.

fucking spooky that there are more of these in your bowels than there are bodycells in your own body

>OK then what's your explaination smart-ass?
I don't have one. Unlike you though, I freely admit this instead of filling in the gap with "random mutations" and "lots of time". Ignorance is OK as long as you're aware of it.
>You obviously can't grasp the concept of evolution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
No one is denying evolution/natural selection here. Adapting to certain conditions is vastly different to evolving a brain or an eye. When an experiment shows a single celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular one, or an organism growing a new body part, then you can talk.
>inb4 b.b..but millions of years

kys phone faggot

Off topic
How do you make webm?

Nyan: gitgud.io/nixx/WebMConverter
& Nyan: rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
(When I'm too lazy to squeeze better compression with something else.)

>No one is denying evolution/natural selection here. Adapting to certain conditions is vastly different to evolving a brain or an eye. When an experiment shows a single celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular one, or an organism growing a new body part, then you can talk.
There's surviving intermediate examples for all those situations, despite the stair-stepping that usually occurs, as a slight survival advantage variance will absorb the remaining population in a handful of generations, vs. the thousands to millions that had to pass for it to happen. I dunno how one expects to re-create the perfect conditions for a one time fluke that took millions to billions of years to happen in real time, but I don't think any example of that would convince you, given all the examples of spectrum variance all around you already.

here you go, single cell to multi-cellular, let's talk
pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full
they basically glue themselves together and then start operating as a group
adding to that the previous experiment posted sufficed anyway, as it demonstrates increase in complexity by beneficial mutation.

>Evolution is like creationism for atheists.

this

>Evolution is like creationism for atheists.
what did he mean by this

We don't live in dogma like you, we don't live in a frozen world where something is written in a book, so it's true. It's not a scientific vision.

We will accept the evolution theory is wrong or incomplete when you will bring with facts another theory.

It's very improbable that the evolution theory is a theory and not a reality though because of all the observations scientists accomplished which all confirmed it.

God designed us that way.
> I unironically believe this

It lets us avoid snakes and shit. And see antelopes at a distance to endurance hunt.

← read all about it

her eyes evolved for me to skeet in them

OK that's very interesting. I was wrong, or I'm not educated enough on the subject to contest the point.

not really. Listing specific examples is not that useful either - the important thing is the concept of how it works.

>Simply feeling around the trunk and branches will get you where you need to go safely.
Tell that to the next lion or tree snake you come across. Humans evolved in the same environment as these creatures.

The creature with the eyes has a distinct advantage over creatures that don't, so much so that virtually all complex non-subterranean non-oceanic animals have them, all the way down to the insects and mollusks. If it had no eyes, natural selection either gave it eyes, forced it into dark places, or doomed it to extinction.

this is the truth. evolutionists are forever grasping at straws

There was nothing around to see the first eyes form.

>How can this amazing sand castle be built from tiny little grains of sand?

those were actually more like worms, not fish
but it's the correct answer

>pnis.org
I'm not clicking on your ad-riddled porn site, you shill.

>pnas

>people simplify shit they know nothing about
...just as you are doing now.

>Why is the math and science board full of morons?
..bcoz modfag is a /pol/itard, and
fails to ban his fellow /pol/itards

>I didn't know science
...and you still don't.

>Ignorance is OK as long as you're ignorant.
what-everrr, antisciencefag

>I'm not educated
...like the rest of the trolls in this thread.

>allows no understanding
understanding requires active study, not
merely passive acceptance of explanation

>this image just jumps over the gaps
it's an image Cletus, not an education

>this is the truth
no, this is just a bullshit dismissal of decades
of careful discovery and hard work by devoted
and intelligent people, quite unlike you lot

so beautiful

hypothesis:

these threads are used to find what counter-evolution arguments work best

just like feeding data-sets into optimization algorithms, and someone is trying to find out what would work best on the public and what evolution arguments are easiest to twist and what lies are the hardest to quickly disprove

we are training the next generation of anti-science shills

am i wrong?

what about, I don't know, the idea that they're just trolls

I told you, I'm not looking at your penis, Sally.