Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?

I see people continually label "Christians" as those who believe only in a 7000 year old earth and that god snapped his fingers to make man with their exit from Eden. To be quite frank I personally do not know of anyone with this view. I do know there are groups that believe this just like so many other non-evolutionary beliefs, but I truly have not met anyone who would argue this as total fact and not more of a way to explain when man became man.

What I see more as to what people see differently is whether we are a random act of evolution or intelligent design with evolution as still the tool, and so that is the bigger question here.

Even the bible explains in symbolism the evolution of man. At some point in our evolution we could say we became man, and no longer apart of the chimp family tree. Adam and Eve could easily be the symbolism for this start of man. With Adam taking the bite of the apple he became self-aware and gained the ability to make good and evil choices. If Eden is the symbolism for the innocent animal world were self awareness is not a part of it then Adam and Eve i.e. “man” left that world when Adam took a bite from the apple off the tree. The bible even says they put of clothes because of their new self awareness.

Genesis 3 introduces the Serpent, "slier than every beast of the field." The serpent tempts the woman to eat from the tree of knowledge, telling her that it will not lead to death; she succumbs, and gives the fruit to the man, who eats also, "and the eyes of the two of them were opened." Aware now of their nakedness, they make coverings of fig leaves, and hide from the sight of God.

Personally I think there were some really smart people who wrote this so long ago and we tend to be too stupid to see it.

Also just who is god? The bible says we were made in his image, so could god then not be an alien? He could be 12 billion years ahead of us, or created at the big bang, or maybe he caused the big bang…in all three cases he would most likely be all knowing and all powerful with the ability to create life at will.



[edit on 22-3-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Astyanax

No, I mean what would be the point of it to God? Why not just create the world fully formed, instead of having this thing called evolution? What good would that do?

I view God as very logical and methodical. He is a creator. What does creating involve? Do you ever create anything? What do you get out of it? What do you learn from it? Does it create a methodology? One or many that can be used again and again?

Where do humans get the idea that God/Infinite/ID likes to perform magic?

It is my thinking and experience that God will use whatever naturally works without using unnecessary magic (magic to us, but possibly higher stages of physics to Him), unless needed. Perhaps this was his intent with the cosmos. Give it a head start, intervene only where necessary, and let his creation evolve.

Even if he has a detached "love" for man - wouldn't he use all of his creation as a stimulus or learning mechanism, for us, and perhaps other beings? Could it all be part of an experiment?

Correct me if I am wrong, please. About 90% of the universe is invisible and is filled with dark matter. Very little is known. Yet, this could be assisting all the visible cosmos. Could black holes lead us to other universes?

If we cannot answer HUGE questions regarding our universe, or multiple universes, or even dimensions, how in the hell can we answer the question of God????? Are we leaning too much on our limited intelligence and experience? In light of the magnificence of the universe...super novas, quasars, galaxies, etc., can you honestly say with intelligence that you are positive there is no intelligent founder?

Well, it's an apparently reasonable opinion - till you realize that you then have to explain the higher power.

Are we assuming that it won't be?

Can you explain the power behind life? Who or what developed or created the spark? Evolution is a mechanism for life, but it never would be a reality without something creating the breath of life, to give it - "life."

Perhaps once the majority of people exchange their former conditioning regarding a higher power with consciousness - God (or whatever you want to label him/it), then there may be more broadmindedness in exploring this entity that created science. Quantum physics is trying to do so, even Einstein was interested in this mystery!

Rather than resisting it as a block, which limits brainstorming, let's figure out the non-religious alternatives. It's a choice.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
I view God as very logical and methodical. He is a creator. What does creating involve? Do you ever create anything? What do you get out of it? What do you learn from it? Does it create a methodology? One or many that can be used again and again?

I contributed a post in another thread that speaks to some of these questions. I create things for a living, so I have some experience of the process.

It is my thinking and experience that God will use whatever naturally works without using unnecessary magic (magic to us, but possibly higher stages of physics to Him), unless needed. Perhaps this was his intent with the cosmos. Give it a head start, intervene only where necessary, and let his creation evolve.

I very much like the idea of God as an artist, entertaining himself and his chums with the spectacle of an evolving universe. However, it is purely speculative and begs the question of whether we need a God to explain the world in the first place. I seem to recall that you and I have had this conversation before.

There is another problem, which you acknowledge when you equate 'magic' with 'higher stages of physics'. If it's only 'higher stages of physics' to God, why shouldn't He use it? I have a perfectly functional pair of legs but if I wish to travel more than a few hundred metres for any other purpose save those of recreation or exercise, I hop into my car and drive there. I dare say you do the same, because it makes sense to do so. If God had access to 'magic' or 'higher stages of physics', it would make sense for him to use them, rather than trust to the hit-and-miss process of natural selection to develop his creation.

Of course, it is possible to think of possible reasons why he might had chosen evolution: maybe his object in creating the world was such that it could best be achieved through this cruel, messy, expensive and uncertain process. Or maybe God just wants it this way. Or... but it doesn't matter. All we do is pile speculation upon speculation. First we speculate that there is a God who created the world. Next we speculate as to his methods. Then we go on to speculate about his motives for choosing those particular methods. We'll be speculating about his digestion next!

About 90% of the universe is invisible and is filled with dark matter. Very little is known. Yet, this could be assisting all the visible cosmos. Could black holes lead us to other universes?

74 percent dark energy, 22 percent dark matter, 3.6 percent interstellar gas, 0.4 percent stars, planets, quasars, black holes and other stuff, including us. Don't you think you're being just a wee bit anthropocentric?

If we cannot answer HUGE questions regarding our universe, or multiple universes, or even dimensions, how in the hell can we answer the question of God?????

I think God is pretty easy to explain. Voltaire did it once and for all, actually.

In light of the magnificence of the universe...super novas, quasars, galaxies, etc., can you honestly say with intelligence that you are positive there is no intelligent founder?

There does not need to be and there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that one exists, so why bother even thinking about it?

Can you explain the power behind life? Who or what developed or created the spark? Evolution is a mechanism for life, but it never would be a reality without something creating the breath of life, to give it - "life."

I don't see that it's any great mystery. Personally, I believe the universe is absolutely crawling with life: that it comes into being whenever and wherever suitable conditions arise, and that the range of such conditions is far wider than we can recognize from our terrestrial experience. I am satisfied that natural processes, undirected by any telic agent, are all that is needed to bring forth what we call 'life' and cause its evolution into a multitude of forms.

Here's something for you to think about. There is, as you are probably aware, no single, watertight, satisfactory definition of life. We can describe life in terms of its processes but cannot define what it is in essence, or how precisely it differs from that which is not life. I put it to you that the difficulty arises because the distinction between animate and inanimate things is an artificial one that the universe does not support or recognize.

Life is certainly mysterious - but only, I believe, in the sense that our knowledge of it is rather sketchy. I don't think it contains any essential mystery beyond the power of human inquiry to solve. There is no ghost; there is only the machine.

[edit on 22/3/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

I contributed a post in another thread that speaks to some of these questions. I create things for a living, so I have some experience of the process.

Yes, we do have things in common: both writers and I am an artist (painter etc).

I seem to recall that you and I have had this conversation before.

Yes we have. But I enjoy the repartee. Don't you? Actually I like you, how foolish am I? There are too many children on here who like to argue for the sake of arguing, and I like to learn.

If it's only 'higher stages of physics' to God, why shouldn't He use it?

Sweetie, who says he hasn't? Maybe you need a healthy dose of nature shows or shows like I just watched on the cosmos. To me it is obvious.

Of course, it is possible to think of possible reasons why he might had chosen evolution: maybe his object in creating the world was such that it could best be achieved through this cruel, messy, expensive and uncertain process. Or maybe God just wants it this way. Or... but it doesn't matter.

Or was he just new at it? You would never waste your breath on threads like this if it truly didn't matter.

Next we speculate as to his methods. Then we go on to speculate about his motives for choosing those particular methods. We'll be speculating about his digestion next!

Ahhh, curiosity. What a neat invention!!! In the words of Hercule Pierrot: "It works our little gray cells, that is what they are there for!" I have the time and it is apparent that you do also.

Are we not here to examine all the possibilities?

74 percent dark energy, 22 percent dark matter, 3.6 percent interstellar gas, 0.4 percent stars, planets, quasars, black holes and other stuff, including us. Don't you think you're being just a wee bit anthropocentric?

Actually blame the cosmos show I mentioned. I took the figures right off the science channel. Please excuse them the inaccuracies, and me for quoting them, thanks!

Where did you get the idea that I think we are the center of the universe metaphorically speaking? Ah, you got me wrong - there. I think we are a drop in the bucket. It is one of the reasons why I don't have the "issues" regarding a God that most of you do. I DON'T think we are that special.

I think God is pretty easy to explain. Voltaire did it once and for all, actually.

Actually he said many things, a couple here:

"Those who believe absurdities make atrocities."

&

Of all religions the Christians is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men."

&

"The happiest of all lives is a busy solitude."

That is all that I could find quickly in my collections of quotes.

But I love Einstein quotes and have many. Perhaps you can relate to this one?:

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

You and I - it would appear, have no difficulty.

There does not need to be and there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that one exists, so why bother even thinking about it?

Again...why not? I will digress and point out how little we know. Is our knowledge limitless? Or can we still discover or learn a thing or two? I have boundaries and limitations, do you? Does science?

Life is certainly mysterious - but only, I believe, in the sense that our knowledge of it is rather sketchy. I don't think it contains any essential mystery beyond the power of human inquiry to solve. There is no ghost; there is only the machine.

Anything is a mystery, in that which, we do not know. Our zeal for life or lack thereof determines our willingness to explore all possibilities and meanings.


Thank you for your link to you new thread! I will add my 25 cents worth!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Voltaire... said many things.

He sure did. The statement I referred to was this very famous one: 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.'

I believe that is exactly what has happened.

Here's a link to an interesting (and speculative ) article about the evolution of religion. I have my own hypothesis, which complements, I believe, the matter of the article. Bear with me while I explain as simply as possible.

At some time in the remote past our ancestors first acquired a sense of themselves as conscious, willing agents in a world populated by other such agents. This is something animals are thought, for the most part, to lack. It is what separates us from the rest of known creation.

The linked article suggests how and why human beings began to attribute consciousness and willed action to natural phenomena that possess neither, and how this led to the institution of religion. Maybe so, but the argument somehow lacks the force of conviction. I propose that there was a stronger and more individually personal motivator.

This was the fact that our sense of ourselves as willing agents in control of ourselves and aspects of the world around us is forever being compromised by the fact that we are, at times, nothing of the kind. I'm not getting into a free will debate here. I'm simply pointing out that strong emotions, generated by powerful unconscious, instinctual drives, often seem to take over from our rational, willing selves and force us to behave in unexpected, unpredictable ways. Reason, like consciousness, is associated with the self; hunger, lust, fear and anger often shoulder reason out of the way and take over the controls themselves.

To emergent, reasoning consciousness, these moments when it was shoved aside by instinct must have been threatening and uniquely terrifying. How could they be understood? One answer would be: as other, alien consciousnesses. Thus the concept of possession, of other minds - gods or spirits - that could enter a body and sieze control from the mind that inhabited it. The first gods and demons, I suspect, were not anthropomorphizations of external phenomena but personifications of our own inner drives.

These drives are so powerful that even modern humankind fears them. And with good reason: they can make us do great harm to ourselves and others. Even when their worst effects are contained, yet they disturb our minds; it is no coincidence that adolescents often develop neurotic symptoms about the same time they start developing pubic hair.

So we create laws, morals and manners to regulate our behaviour, and police forces and other authories to enforce them; collectively, we call these inventions society. But the most important device we use to tame our instincts is religion, because it is by far the most powerful. Unlike other institutions, which work to restrict the external manifestations of instinct, religion works like - is, in fact - operant conditioning that causes the instinct to manifest itself in some kind of displacement activity. And it works extremely well: the legions of the hashishin, kamikaze and modern-day jihadi suicide-bombers bear witness to this.

I know you're one of those people who thinks belief in God is okay but religion is not. Well, there's no denying that all religion is corrupt and may, indeed, be so by definition. But it isn't, after all, God that humanity needs; it's religion. God is marginal to our requirements; religion is, it appears, central.

reply to post by Astyanax

He sure did. The statement I referred to was this very famous one: 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.'

I like this quote from Einstein also (who is correct? - Perception & life experience?):

"It's better to live as though there were a God and find out there isn't one, than the other way around!"

This was the fact that our sense of ourselves as willing agents in control of ourselves and aspects of the world around us is forever being compromised by the fact that we are, at times, nothing of the kind. I'm not getting into a free will debate here. I'm simply pointing out that strong emotions, generated by powerful unconscious, instinctual drives, often seem to take over from our rational, willing selves and force us to behave in unexpected, unpredictable ways. Reason, like consciousness, is associated with the self; hunger, lust, fear and anger often shoulder reason out of the way and take over the controls themselves.

Yes, but is there a point in-between? I work in mental health/recovery. You see the above especially with environmental or organic disorders. I am very pragmatic and logical. My husband, is actually more emotional than I am, yet, I have the stronger spiritual connection to God than he does. Was it by my design? No, but that is a very deep subject and one that I guard.

Most tend to be black and white, either - or, in thinking, whereas, often the real truth lies somewhere in-between.

Man likes to connect to extremes, at times. Does it tend to give us more definition and security? Does it make us feel "right," "better," or "smarter?" Hence, the evolving of religion in all of its manifestations. Man in his very imperfect state requires authority and then rebels against the very thing he craves or asks for.

Anytime one thinks outside the box, one faces judgment by his fellowman. Most cannot take the judgment, most MUST fit within a group consensus. This is any group!!

I have come to learn with my very expansive life history, that when the majority believes or follows the crowd (however big or small) they are putting themselves at risk for being, or becoming automatons. Man can be easily swayed especially if ones emotions are triggered and are duped to buy into a group conscious lie.

To emergent, reasoning consciousness, these moments when it was shoved aside by instinct must have been threatening and uniquely terrifying. How could they be understood? One answer would be: as other, alien consciousnesses. Thus the concept of possession, of other minds - gods or spirits - that could enter a body and sieze control from the mind that inhabited it. The first gods and demons, I suspect, were not anthropomorphizations of external phenomena but personifications of our own inner drives.

Have you ever experienced anything remotely like what you have just described? Witnessed anything paranormal? Have you been around evil? You are applying rational reasoning to an irrational situation, the very thing that a good therapist is trained to NOT do. Why? Because there are things that cannot be explained through logic or science. I speak from vast knowledge and experience. It is the very reason why no one has the intellectual reasoning to overcome my experience of reality.

With all that said, there are innumerable examples of those who have been manipulated by psychosis that springs from trauma in childhood or exposure to evil that transforms the persons equilibrium psychologically.

I cannot attribute knowledge or experience to another just because I have experienced many things. It is the very mistake most of us make in understanding the mind, and a persons experience, so we generally look for ways to accept situations or phenomena, through detached academic explanations. It is a coping mechanism to ward off that which makes us feel uncomfortable or judged.

So we create laws, morals and manners to regulate our behaviour, and police forces and other authories to enforce them; collectively, we call these inventions society. But the most important device we use to tame our instincts is religion, because it is by far the most powerful. Unlike other institutions, which work to restrict the external manifestations of instinct, religion works like - is, in fact - operant conditioning that causes the instinct to manifest itself in some kind of displacement activity. And it works extremely well: the legions of the hashishin, kamikaze and modern-day jihadi suicide-bombers bear witness to this.

Yes, totally agree. But then again, aren't we just lemmings?

I know you're one of those people who thinks belief in God is okay but religion is not. Well, there's no denying that all religion is corrupt and may, indeed, be so by definition. But it isn't, after all, God that humanity needs; it's religion. God is marginal to our requirements; religion is, it appears, central.

Concur!


Now, here are my thoughts put a little synoptically;

We live in a world of; cause and effect, choices and consequences. The "air" is made up of dark energy and light (subjectively). Either one is part of the problem (dark) or part of the solution. The Gods exist in whatever your choice is. It is up to us to make choices, and this is where free will comes in, albeit, limited.

Are we living in a time of massive earthly evolutionary changes? What is the energy like in the world today? You can witness people falling into categories. Is this healthy or...predictable? Are there levels of understanding that ARE available but most chose to stick to their comfort zones? Will many fall into the gaps with these changes? And...does God really have much to do with it, or is it a natural occurrence that he encourages?

A persons "senses" can determine what the air of the world is and can take stances that are required to live in the light. Religion is dark and hence, have the largest masses. So that can tell us that the world has a great deal of dark energy around it. Dark energy is easy to access as it is the most discernible.

Light energy requires getting away from the masses and tuning into a higher knowledge that is not easily accessible. Those who choose this higher knowledge attract the light and hence, let go of the rudimentary human ways of thinking. It is our choice to seek higher levels of understanding and that divides us, and confuses the whole God issue.

No, I am not New Age! No I am not Gnostic, although I think the earliest simplistic thoughts were correct, but man makes a religion out of every belief.

I put thoughts down on my thread below, simplistically, but nevertheless, a bit of what I think is reality. "Is God Cruel or Just Misunderstood?"



[edit on 23-3-2009 by MatrixProphet]

reply to post by MatrixProphet

Have you ever experienced anything remotely like what you have just described?

Yes, indeed. Every one of us has. You mean you've never felt rage or overwhelming lust, never lost your sense of rational control over your own actions? Never said to yourself or someone else, 'I don't know what came over me'?

Witnessed anything paranormal?

Of course not. The word is meaningless. I have witnessed many unusual things that were hard to explain, including firewalking, cases of extreme self-mortification (knives and spikes being driven into the flesh, a woman suspended from a frame by dozens of cords tied to hooks driven through the flesh of her back), miraculous recoveries from sickness or 'bad luck' following the exhumation of supposed 'charms' from the sufferer's garden, a spirit medium speaking to a girl I knew in the voice (she swore) of her dead father, and a case of 'demonic possession' where the exorcist, over a period of several weeks, removed about a dozen sewing-needles from lesions in the victim's flesh. Such things are hard to explain - but never impossible.

Have you been around evil?

I live in the middle of the heart of darkness. Believe me, you who live in a country at peace can have no idea of what I have seen. I have watched racist mobs burn down a neighbourhood. I have seen men chained to lamposts, draped with petrol-soaked tyres and burnt alive. I have seen what happens when a man gets his leg blown off by a landmine, and what a suicide bomber looks like at the moment of explosion. I have watched corpses bob down a river while the water-monitors tore chunks out of them. I have friends who live in mortal fear of abduction, torture and death. The friend and mentor of my teenage years was abducted and murdered by a state-sponsored terror squad. That was seventeen years ago.

You are applying rational reasoning to an irrational situation, the very thing that a good therapist is trained to NOT do.

And you, dear MatrixProphet, appear to have misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe you should read my post again, without preconceptions this time.

No one has the intellectual reasoning to overcome my experience of reality.

I think it is more to do with what philosophers call the problem of qualia.

Nice talking to you.

[edit on 24/3/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you for explaining your experience a bit. I appreciate it. We both have experienced some really dark things that are not limited to country or place. Often evil exists right next door with seemingly "nice" people. Sometimes the more overt - in your face, although very difficult, involves little denial.

Covert evil is another story. But all is negative. I am sorry for your obvious pain and terrible circumstances that you have had to endure or witness.

If I misunderstood what you were saying regarding my comment:

Have you ever experienced anything remotely like what you have just described? Witnessed anything paranormal? Have you been around evil? You are applying rational reasoning to an irrational situation, the very thing that a good therapist is trained to NOT do. Why? Because there are things that cannot be explained through logic or science. I speak from vast knowledge and experience. It is the very reason why no one has the intellectual reasoning to overcome my experience of reality.

I am speaking more generally. I cannot read anyone's mind on ATS so I am speaking from the stance that not all can be explained through science. To me it is shaming when a person minimizes a person's experiences with left brain logic that can only be perceived and understood in a spiritual or immaterial light.

I am sorry if you felt I was not understanding you correctly. I do apologize. If you care to explain further - I would love to hear.

I accept your reality as truth and will not say that you made it up or imagined it, for I know that you didn't. The same can be said of some of us who can swear that many "divine" occurrences took place and we didn't imagine it, or convolute it.

It is hard when one's reality is challenged, isn't it? Especially when we know that we have experienced that which most never do. I include spiritual in that also. Until we walk in another persons shoes we can never say for certain the "corporeal" or substantial facts of things.

reply to post by B.A.C.


What i do think is that the eye and the brain could connect/link us to other species genetically, whether that be by natural means as with evolution or the artificial genetically modified kind, who knows.

Why i think this. I own a pair of bearded dragons (lizards). I can look at them and notice features that are shared with humans, muscular arms and legs, 5 fingers, 5 toes, a backbone, neck and head featuring 2 nostrils, 2 eyes, 2 earholes, and mouth containg teeth and tongue.. This alone, without all the scientific research and tests that show our links to other species allows me to contemplate that this is possible.

Another feature the dragons both share is a grey/blue eye like scare on the very top of their heads, you could say the crown perhaps.
I found this fascinating, and with them both having it thought it must be a feature that all dragons have. With a little more research i discovered that the scale is a feature of the species along with other lizards, frogs and some types of fish. The below is an example taken from the internet of the scale i am talking about on beared dragons:




This is called the parietal eye or third eye and is connected to the pineal gland:

The parietal eye is a photosensory organ connected to the pineal body, active in triggering hormone production (including reproduction) and thermoregulation. It is sensitive to changes in light and dark, it does not form images, having only a rudimentary retina and lens. It is visible as an opalescent gray spot on the top of some lizard's heads; also referred to as "pineal eye" or "third eye."

source:www.anapsid.org...

This is where the parital lobes are located in humans, this coincidentally is where i experience that intense heat sensation when i had an epilepsy seizure/kundalini awakening experience (whatever? , i think the're both connected anyway):



Parietal eye:

The parietal eye is a part of the epithalamus, which can be divided into two major parts; the epiphysis (the pineal organ, or pineal gland if mostly endocrine) and the parietal organ (often called the parietal eye, or third eye if it is photoreceptive). It arises as an anterior evagination of the pineal organ or as a separate outgrowth of the roof of the diencephalon. In some species, it protrudes through the skull.[4] The parietal eye uses a different biochemical method of detecting light than rod cells or cone cells in a normal vertebrate eye.

The lizard-like reptile tuatara has a "well-developed parietal eye, with small lens and retina".Parietal eyes are also found in lizards, frogs and lampreys, as well as some species of fish, such as tuna and pelagic sharks, where it is visible as a light-sensitive spot on top of their head. A poorly developed version, often called the parapineal gland, occurs in salamanders. In birds and mammals the parietal organ (but not the pineal gland) is absent.

[5

source: en.wikipedia.org...

Parietal lobe in humans:

The parietal lobes can be divided into two functional regions. One involves sensation and perception and the other is concerned with integrating sensory input, primarily with the visual system. The first function integrates sensory information to form a single perception (cognition). The second function constructs a spatial coordinate system to represent the world around us. Individuals with damage to the parietal lobes often show striking deficits, such as abnormalities in body image and spatial relations (Kandel, Schwartz & Jessel, 1991).

source www.neuroskills.com...

So is is possible that our Parietal eye was lost through evolution, do we still have it but is no longer external? and is that what is this what we call and do refer to as the 'Third eye'?

To my knowledge what birds use to migrate, or their compass if you like is the hippocampus i think.
Could ours (located in the medial temporal lobe), maybe once had the same navigational ability as birds, did our ancestors have parts of the brain that have now weakened or got lost through evolotion which may have aided them with migration???

If this is something we have lost through evolution, it may explain other phenonema that we cannot find logical reasons for, like the reminence and possibly why people who meditate and relax without the bacground noise of everyday life are able to tap into it.

I wondedered then what else we may have remnants of which may be able to find an explanation for other phenomena. I found the following and thought that may be why people could see aura's if they have remnants of something like the below:

Ecological and Physiological Requirements for UV Vision. A wide range of species has maintained UV vision during vertebrate evolution and used it for such basic behavioral traits as foraging, mate choice, and communication. This finding suggests that organisms with UV vision have a selective advantage over those without it. However, we have also seen that many other species exchanged UV vision by violet vision. Therefore, the selective advantage of organisms having UV vision may occur under special circumstances. Because UV vision works under UV light, it is reasonable for organisms to switch UV vision to violet vision when UV light is not available to them. In the extreme cases, as we have seen in the coelacanth and dolphin (Fig. 1), the SWS1 gene can become nonfunctional when UV and violet light are not available or are unimportant to them.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

Maybe I'm just nuts??puz:





[edit on 25-3-2009 by MCoG1980]

And for anyone interested in the partial lobes, i found this video quite interesting - long one though:

reply to post by MCoG1980


Are all these things you spoke of possible in theory? Sure they are.

Although, if we EVER had a parietal eye on the back of our head, I'm not sure why that would devolve and be of no use. Sounds pretty useful to me.

My Iguana uses his all the time, he's pretty much impossible to sneak up on.

-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-

The one that always stumped me was the evolution of gender. I imagine the entire ocean filled with amoeba and one mutates and develops the rudiments of male sexuality. Understanding the millions of years involved, what are the odds that another will mutate (evolve) and produce the rudiments of female sexuality?
That these should occur within even a thousand years of each other is a hell of a coincidence, but considering the size of the ocean, especially to something as small as an amoeba and what good would it do if there were a thousand such mutations all happening at the same time if the male is off the coast of New Zealand and the female is a thousand feet deep in a New Jersey bay. These two different mutations, to provide some type of survival advantage would have to take place at roughly the same time and within what? a thousand feet of each other? Two totally random and different mutations? Each involving an entirely new biological division within themselves containing, unlike every other piece of them, only half their genes? Think about this one. It'll drive you bonkers. Just curious, how do the evolutionist explain this?

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Robin Goodfellow]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
The one that always stumped me was the evolution of gender.

The evolution of sex is one of the most interesting problems in biology.

I imagine the entire ocean filled with amoeba and one mutates and develops the rudiments of male sexuality. Understanding the millions of years involved, what are the odds that another will mutate (evolve) and produce the rudiments of female sexuality?

It didn't happen in a single step. Here are two alternative theories of the evolution of the sexual response. The Wikipedia entry from which they are taken is very informative and readable.