"Ok, here is the theory. There were these creatures with a light sensitive patch. Through a series of completely random mutations this light patch is turned into something akin to a modern eye. Ok, fanciful but plausible. What is not plausible is the idea that said random mutations produced a second eye that is nearly identical to the first, in the same creature."
38 comments
PRATT.
Completely neglecting the bilateral symmetry of lungs, arms, legs, buttocks, nostrils, teeth, kidneys, etc.
"Ok, here is the theory. There were these creatures with a light sensitive patch. Through a series of completely random mutations this light patch is turned into something akin to a modern eye."
While the mutations are random, evolution is not random because it also includes natural selection. Also, you do not have an understanding of the time scale involved.
"Ok, fanciful but plausible. What is not plausible is the idea that said random mutations produced a second eye that is nearly identical to the first, in the same creature."
If you'll notice, most multi-cellular lifeforms are bilaterally symetrical.
I almost thought there was a light bulb struggling to turn on for a moment.
Lion, Lion, Lion. You think we are saying that all limbs, eyes, ears, etc just HAPPENED to form symetrically while existing independantly from each other?
Wow. Just, just wow.
As has been pointed out, what makes you think that symmetry wasn't there first? Or if it came after and was able to reproduce mirror arms, legs, lungs and ears, why not eyes too?
What a neat argument. He's rehashing the famous ID "argument" of "Look at the human eye!" (irreducible complexity) by conceding that it could perhaps happen and then chose a new argument which throws the logical fallacies of irreducible complexity ("I cannot concieve of it, therefore it must not be,") into even greater relief!
Actually... This is both too straw-man-y and progressive an idea for me to think it's not coming from a well planted "troll".
In simple amphibians, mutations resulting in extra flippers or heads or eyes aren't even that rare.
It's also possible that the simple lifeform having the light sensitive patch just acquired two patches in a series of development mutations and just managed to survive better than the ones with just one.
I know, there's a problem of how this mutation got in to germ line, but I'm too tired to go there now.
That's extremely plausible, because
-Random mutations like that happen all the time (there was a new story last week about a duck born with 4 legs)
-Such a mutation would be very advantageous (better range of vision, 3D vision)
Yeah, see, there's bilateral symmetry, and it came before eyes, so it's complicated, but the way it works out you probably would get eyes on both sides. Hox genes, nifty things.
So why do we have two ears, two nostrils, two legs, two thumbs, etc? A single mutation created a split so that we have a line of symmetry down the body. You can see that in a tiny embryo. Each eye evolved in tandem with the other, not separately. Geez, if you don't understand WHAT you are looking at, you can never figure out WHY.
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.