The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body. What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.
What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!
125 comments
Logic fail!
The odds of something developing are nothing to do with the size of the body part!
And the odds of two of them happening would not be the original odds squared - I have no idea how he got this.
In fact, since one eye takes 1/4000th of the body, two takes 1/2000th so the odds of two eyes developing are only 1/2000! Practically a sure cert.
My head hurts now ...
Even IF your non-logic had any merit, simply having a huge number of creatures evolving would, inevitably, evolve eyes. And what do you know, 3 billion years of life evolving means lots and lots of living things for evolution to work with.
Or in short: you fail science hard.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Approximate volume of letusreason = 1 cubic decimeter.
Approximate volume of the Earth = 1.0832073 x 1012 km3 .
Chance of letusreason learning how to use maths properly = fuck all.
Dear fundies, math is not your friend.
You could actually learn some math and science, but then you wouldn't need your bible.
Actually, since symetrical development is the norm (Animal and Plants, hell, snowflakes even) One is more unlikely than two.
Argument from Ignorance, Non-sequitor, and begging the question, jack ass. Three fallacies in one.
Just because something seems awesome to you doesn't lead to the conclusion that goddidit and it certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion it was Jebbus.
"The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body. What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.
What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!"
There's a lot of lifeforms on Earth that beat those odds extremely easily. All the fish. All the reptiles. All the birds. All the mammals.
Including the great apes. Especially the common ancestor from which the early hominids, and thus Homo Sapiens, descended from
Good job in simultaneously proving Evolution, and destroying your own argument, letusreason.
Biology fail, probability fail, logic fail, etc.
... we've got failure on all fronts.
And following that reasoning, letus would never in the history of the universe get an eye on his dick or his brain!
(I know the Fundie used the name 'letusreason', not just 'letus', but seriously, after having read their post, who could possibly apply that user-name to them with a straight face?)
Wow, is that ever stupid.
Additionally the odds against eyes evolving were MUCH greater than 4000-1 and yet eyes have evolved independently at least 40 times. You see, when you mix billions of generations over billions of years...oh fuck it.
> What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.
And yet, here you are, with two eyes. Evolution is a true miracle, isn't it?
@John_in_Oz
"(I know the Fundie used the name 'letusreason', not just 'letus', but seriously, after having read their post, who could possibly apply that user-name to them with a straight face?)"
Frankly, he'd be better off with the username 'lettucereason'. Because even a greenleafed salad vegetable has more reason (& logic) than him.
According to the Bible, Azrael (the angel of death) is made all of eyes, one for every human who has ever lived, is living, and will ever live, and as each human dies their eye closes.
Now, for the sake of ridiculing you, let's ignore the past and future bit, that's nearly 7 billion eyes on one being (for every person currently alive).
If he's made all of eyes, then each eye is one 7 billionth of his body. And there are seven billion eyes.
7 billion to the power of 7 billion is way more than even the most ridiculous estimate of "the odds of a human evolving by chance" that have been claimed here and assumed to mean it's impossible, therefore...
The odds of Azrael existing are small enough to be considered impossible, therefore part of the bible is wrong, therefore all of the bible is wrong, therefore God doesn't exist.
Or you're just a moron.
Or both.
Most animals have some kind of "eye", ranging from light-sensitive spots (snails and scallops) to elaborate eyes such as the squid or octopus, with almost every intermediate form you can think of. And all animals, with the exception of sponges and jellyfish, are bilateral, with a matched pair of almost everything. So, actually, evolving one eye would be more unlikely than two.
Also, since skin covers 100% of our bodies, I guess we must have evolved our skin, then God put eyes in it (cue "rolling eyes" smiley)
"What is the likelyhood of the eye evolving on the body?"
"What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body?"
Statistics- The most assraped of all the sciences.
This is like cutting open a kiwi fruit and being astounded that the two halves are mirror images of each other. It's statistically impossible, man! Praise Jebus!
Oh, and don't get me started on the whole "the eye could only possibly evolve in one place of the body" mega-misuse of logic.
You fail Mathematics, logic, statistics, biology, and anatomy forever.
By that standard, people should all have wings, since the wings needed to lift a human would have to be fucking huge. Therefore, the "odds" are great.
For the sake of my SAN score, let's just look at the first sentence and see what's wrong with it.
"The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body."
We can note that the author seems to confuse area with volume. The human body, along with its components, is a three-dimensional object. Consequently, it has a volume, not an area. Trying to apply the notion of area on a 3D object is as nonsensical as trying to determine the number of (dimensionless) points in a line segment. And while it is true that the surface of the human body has an area, the ocular globes are still 3D objects themselves, and not part of this surface in any way.
You completely fail to understand probability.
You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that humans sprung fully formed from nothing. While this is consistent with creationism, it is NOT consistent with evolution. Evolution works by improving on what's already present, making it actually quite easy to make large changes so long as a basic framework is generally preserved.
Actually, without addressing your *horrible* excuse for logic, the eye probably had much less chance of evolving than that.
The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body.
And that has what to do with evolution? Evolution is not governed by the principle
What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.
No, the odds of your example are 0. Eyes, or any other body part for that matter, don't evolve "on" a human body, they evolved long before humanity and they didn't evolve independently on humans there were present on our ancestors. We have many, many examples in nature of the eye at nearly every stage of development.
What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body
It doesn't matter what the odds are because no one who knows anything about human evolution or the development of the eye is claiming that eyes developed independantly on humans or that they developed seperately and simultaniously from one another.
Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!
So did you fail at math or were you homeschooled?
As we apparently did evolve with two eyes, the odds is 1, as far as I understand it.
According to his own logic, his brain has a 1/1,000,000,000 chance of evolving.
If I understand this guy correctly he is saying we should all be blind. (Not to mention where do blind people or those with birth defects removing the eyes stand?)
The chance of an organic life form evolving a light sensitive cell is exsteme. Hence the large number of organic life that lacks light sensitive cells.
However given the large number of organic life forms the critera for those odds would eventually be met. After that, in acordance with genetics the odds of that lifeforms offspring having light sensitive cells is quite high.
Then given the popensitiy for genetic mutation to duplicate complete gene sequences the liklihood of that light sensitive cell doubleing is additionally quite high in all future generations of that origional life form.
This look at simplistic odds does not even take into consideration the survival advantages of light sensitive eyes and the further adaptation of those cells into the human eye.
Wow. Math doesn't work that way.
- This is your brain, on religion...
@Almafeta
"@Anon-e-moose : Wouldn't that mean that eyes are independently evolved several times per day?"
Just that what lettucereason failed to realise that, as fish evolved with two eyes, so did the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, the mammals - including the apes, and the common ancestor from which the hominids ultimately leading to Homo Sapiens.
The common factor being they all have two eyes. Thus the probability being 1:1. That common factor in those being a link in that chain of evolution (as opposed to insects, arachnids et al) proves we evolved from basic life that started in the seas. And even before then, the single-celled life that became multi-celled. And previously - the Primordial Soup.
Ergo, lettucereason proving Evolution and destroying his own insane 'Creationist' argument. QED.
And frankly, if Judge John E. Jones III wasn't swayed by the far more credible evidence of the likes of Michael Behe et al in Kitzmiller vs. Dover:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony
Then lettucereason's 'logic' doesn't have an icecube in a fusion reactor's chance of convincing anyone.
Fortunately between evolution and bilateral symmetry, the probability approaches 1. Actually, it would be much less likely for a random eye to be found (solo without a matching part) somewhere else on the body. That would just be creepy.
Mathematics fail, logic fail, evolutionary biology fail. Maybe "letusreason" should change his username to lettucereason, since that is the reasoning level he equates to.
Litsten, evolution real simple. Those who were born with two eyes had more babies because two eyes allowed them to survive better. All their babies that had two eyes had more babies then those that did not. Eventually one eyed die out, two eyes dominate. Evolution, it only takes one mutation.
You guys say evolution is playing dice with the development of organisms.
Well if that is the case the process of evolution plays with heavily loaded dice. How it is loaded depends on the organism's environment.
The Human hair takes up 1:10,000,000 of the human body
The odds of evolving 100,000 of the buggers, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000.
It makes perfect sense, I believe!!
The probability of an organ evolving has nothing to do with the relative volume (not area, which is two-dimensional) of that organ to the volume of the body.
Also, two eyes clearly would not have developed totally independently of each other. It is much more likely, from a purely statistical point of view, that life forms started with one simple eye (or eyespot) and mutated to have two or more (like insects, which have hundreds of eyes arranged into a "compound eye").
Pretending that the development of the left eye is totally independent of the development of the right eye is just as nonsensical as it would be to say, "We'd have been just as likely to evolve eyes in our stomachs as we were to evolve them on the outside, where they can actually see things around us and be useful to us."
"The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body..."
Yes, but it's a whopping 1/7th of our primary sense organs (2 eyes, 2 ears, nose, mouth and skin), so the odds of having two develop are 1/7 * 1/7 = 1/49th. So if there were ever more than say 50 people on Earth we'd be pretty much certain to acquire them.
And that makes about as much sense as your fundtarded attempt.
(I'll tell you something, creation math may not make a lot of sense, but doggone if it isn't a whole lot of fun! ;-)
I recently watched quite a good documentary wherein the probable evolution of eyes is shown in concrete, understandable terms, and with props so that you can see for yourself how it works.
even IF this logic was sound, it doesn't make a difference. yeah, the odds are 16,000,000 to 1. but nature gets 16,000,000 tries.
But it's not like body parts evolve one by one. Eyes evolved when all life was still in the ocean. Eventually life moved on land, and some of the furry creatures we call mammals evolved slowly [but all the body parts at the same time] into a hairy primate, and then into the great apes and people.
That's my understanding of it, at least.
Holy crap.
Do you want to witness an "improbable" event right now in your very own home?
The eye didn't evolve into the human body, it was developed millions of years before the first hominid stood on its hind-legs for the first time.
As two eyes enables depth perception, I'd say that it would be a very advantageous mutation which would render a large amount of offspring.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
