It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolution Of the EYE

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 03:31 PM
I know people who think they are GOD..!

And I know people who think they know everything..!

posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 03:39 PM
I guess the next question would be; what survival advantage did light sensitive cells embedded in the brain give to a creature? If they were embedded in the brain, how would they be exposed to light?
If, although embedded in the brain, they could somehow detect ambient light, what evolutionary advantage would be gained by moving the cells to newly formed, or should I say mutated eye buds?

For the newly transplanted light sensitive cells to function there would already have to be a fully functioning neural pathway developed to transmit the signals from the transplanted light sensitive cells back to the brain so they could be interpreted and put to use in order to give the creature an evolutionary advantage.

I don’t think this is as cut & dry as the article would like to make out.

Everyone seems to have missed this part of the researcher’s statement,

Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain.

Didn't anyone see the "Quite possibly" part? All of this is pure conjecture & supposition.

The fact that there are similar cell types in vertebrates & invertebrates does not automatically prove evolution.

There are still many, many questions that need to be answered.

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 01:49 AM
... Which would be the point to science, to discover the answers to the questions.

One thing I cannot stand, is when a bible thumping creationalist tells me "But science is always changing what they say"...
Of course its changing what it says. That is the process of science. Take the facts, test them, and conclude. If new facts come along, the conclusion has to change... obviously.

I also cannot stand anyone who claims to know something as solid fact. Science doesn't pretend to know it as fact, it is quite clearly stated that the current standing theory is always there because of the data we currently hold.

To hold a written text as infallible, even in the face of new evidence, is ignorance. This is what I've seen the religious bible thumpers do repeatedly.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in