+Universal said, "looking at athiests and theists " Why is it that people who can spell "theist" are too stupid to just put an "a" in front of it to spell "atheist"???
charles darwin stated that it seems highly absurd that eye could have evolved, however he continued the sentence stating how it could have evolved. please dont spread misinformation.
i stopped listening at THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED there is no hard evidence of any such thing again theory as fact THATS NOT SCIENCE THATS HUMAN EGO AT WORK
Here is Darwin's quote in FULL context, it clearly demonstrates his thoughts on the matter to be quite the opposite. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, _seems_, I freely confess, *absurd in the highest degree*. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine falsebut the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
There were various versions of the book The Origin of Species, edited by the own Darwin. The part in which he explains that maybe something as the eye could have evolved if it happened gradually was introduced just later into the book; the original version actually didn't have it, so TED is right when it says that Darwin thought the eye couldn't have evolved from natural selection. It just didn't say that Darwin rethought this later in his life.
Ga Brasil Ah, I didn't know that. Still, if you're going to include the quote at all it seems silly not to also mention that he revised his original thinking. It's an omission that can potentially supply creationists with more "fodder" for their "argument".
Well god did that just because he's a grumpy warlord that always seems in need for people affirming his ego so he designs flawed thing and laughs at seeing it fail :p
This is great. There's one small thing. It was recently discovered that some supporting cells in the retina called Muller glial cells act as fibre optic cables and focus the light onto each individual photoreceptor. So although it appears like the retina is in backwards, it may actually work MORE efficiently the way it is. Your point stands for the blind spot though...
Its not like the blind spot impairs every day tasks and nobody really experiences that the blind spot gets in the way of what theyre doing- in fact, no one normally really NOTICEs it without actively trying to, so I feel that this 'blind spot' argument isn't very strong.
To be fair, I've heard that Charles Darwin gave an explanation for the evolution of the eye, he just introduced it by saying that often misunderstood line.
+Volantis Acedia Correct. Darwin sometimes played both sides of the debate himself: he would state the problem and then give a possible solution. The creationists leave out the second part: it's sad that this video did too.
I agree. I honestly believe that will be the eventual next step in evolution for humans. Why wait for the bumbling processes of natural evolution to take millions of years when we can design better humans in a generation or two? Then again maybe we will kill ourselves off with our own stupidity before we ever "transcend". It's ironic that we are so smart that we could potentially unlock immortality while simultaneously being so stupid that we may never get there.
Except not, our brains are not built to hold such complex eyes it won't even be possible. We need a more developed visual cortex to even handle or comprehend a better image.
NotPickyButStrict I wouldn't want 5x more rods because everything would be 5x brighter and your iris would have to work harder so you wouldn't be blinded a that would cause aches, but I really love your idea of 32 colors receptor types and wish I had 5x more color receptors.
Yeah, many cones! I want to see true yellow and mix red with green, I want to see the not so dangerous part of UV light! For that, really, I would only need 5 types of cones. Infrared or lower would make everything glow, so maybe if I could turn it on and of in my volition it would be fine. Too high on the UV spectrum as well as more energetic colors and my eyes will get damaged. There isn't a lot of short-wave light on Earth anyways.
Just FYI, in the very next sentence, Darwin stated that, even though it seems improbable, he could imagine successive forms evolving even into this super complex structure.
Tear gland depicted @2:46 Is actually the drainage system. The main tear secretion gland lies in the peripheral part of the front part of the eye- socket roof.
lmao stop arguing about god n shit. somebody worked really hard to make this video and i think they deserve more than just fools arguing in the comment section. Great vid :)
You must see the absurdity of your comment. Stop bringing God into the discussion requiring God to understand. And only discuss evolution to further the theory. In other words, evolution cannot stand on its own if we bring God into it, so please don't bring God into it. Close minded scientists are not searching for truth, they are demanding everyone follow their theory. That is a scary proposition... in fact more scary than following the bible because it is contrived by man.
Fascinating video on the evolution of the human eye! It's amazing to see how our vision has developed over time. Thanks for such an insightful and well-presented explanation!
There are still people who say that the eye is too complex to evolve, but it did! But our eyes are indeed complex and I compare them to cameras. However, the eye originally was made for the water so when animals came on to land, their vision wasn't as good so the eye had to adapt overtime to adjust to life out of water.
I’m genuinely curious, how can you be so confident to make such claims? What informs you that we were all once in the sea and came to land and adjusted our eyesight.. How can you make such precise assertions on what took place over such large swaths of time I.e 100s of millions of years.
@@impedimenta934 as opposed to what… information on how to make your eyes (DNA) arising without a mind to encode all that information? There’s more chance of the entire iOS software for the iPhone coming together through a random smashing of the keyboard than your tongue - which you use to disrespect your maker - coming together by chance.
What is it about this video that actually makes a good argument for evolution as opposed to a creator? All I heard were assumptions, assertions and the construction of a story line based on different eyes that *currently* exist in nature
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
As much as I like how you present it, please, one correction. Darwin did not consider the evolution of the eye to be 'absurd to the highest degree'. He used a literary device, pretending his own incredulity, before then explaining that 'even so, this is likely how it happened', and modern science has largely confirmed the scenario he set out way back then. I ask this because that statement, 'even Darwin considered the evolution of the eye absurd', is often trotted out by those seeking to discredit evolution
Very concise on a difficult topic to illustrate! Plus, bonus points for discussing the human eye's flaws, as a little nudge and a wink to those William Paley types.
@@mahendravarmabheemaraju774 except when we look at the fossil record like the cambrian explosion and we see virtually every eye type manifest at the same time within a geological instant. That "evolution" thing sure is a miracle worker lol
ER-MAH-GURD!! I love learning new scientific things, I mean, I already has a basic understanding of how the eye works and all that but It never ceases to amaze me when I watch videos like this and refresh my knowledge and learn something new :D This is so awesome!
This video is magical. And humbling! Truly, the human eye is amazing; it has always amazed me. It honestly moved me very much to remind myself of how incredible and gorgeous the result can be of something so random as evolution. That we all are beautiful compendiums of myriad "errors" or deviations from our source copy, "errors" or deviations that turned out to be more useful in our environment... well, it's just wonderful... and so much like a beautiful ballet. Cheers!
at 2:41 Those are not tear glands shown, that is the tear drainage system. The lacrimal gland is in the upper lid, and oil glands along the lid margins spread oil over the surface of the tears. Other than that (and the Darwin quote not fully explained in context) a pretty nice video.
Why do you suppose it wasn't connected to anything? Flies have some muscle cells almost directly connected to their eyes, enabling the rapid "reorientation" of their wings during flight in response to obstacles and threats.
@@anonymous031 well, the rest of the story is that they SCAN, so at any one time they are something like 4-7mp, but can scan and "render" an image of 576mp.
After Darwin said that the evolution of the human eye SEEMS absurd, he went on to explain how he thought it would be possible. What he suggested was very similar to this.
Taking the quote out of context at 0:35 is a great way to confuse people. He actually described that it "seems" absurd *until* you get to understand evolution.
*An ancient greek teleports into modern day* *Christian*: Well hey there! Do you believe in Zeus? *Greek*: Well of course!!! He is the Almighty!! *Christian*: Well can you prove it? *Guy nearby with umbrella gets struck by lightning* *Greek*: SEE!!!!111!!! That's proof that Zeus exists!!!! *Christian*: Just because you don't understand how lightning works doesn't mean Zeus did it. I on the other hand believe in God almighty. *Greek*: Well can you prove it? *Christian*: Well of course! You see the chart of evolution and the big bang? *Greek*: Yeah? *Christian*: That's the proof God exists!!!!!!111!!!!! *Greek*: Just because you don't understand how the big bang or evolution works doesn't mean God did it.
Then again, you can't "prove" that love exists. All you can do is provide evidence that you love, which is the same you do for asking whether or not God created the world. There is a lot of evidence for creation, but whether or not you'd accept that evidence is up for debate.
Yet there has never been a messenger from Zeus who brought in what Zeus supposedly said. Monotheistic religions are clear in stating that God has sent messengers telling humans exactly about their test, if there is nothing to doubt then this would not be a test. So just because you have no idea what monotheism is about, does not mean it's about nothing :)
I am visually impaired person suffering from macular destrophy, which was genetically disorder, which was currently untreatable so do more video about medical development about this, please sir which will help me and people like me .
When you can't explain it, saying god did it isn't the best idea, actually it's counterproductive. This has been going on for ages, and god of the gaps fallacy is most evident with the human eye argument. Science is taking on these difficult questions and is actually trying to find the answers, and in the meantime a religous person just says it's so complicated so god must have done it, end of story. Thank *god* I live in day and age where I can speak my mind and not die because of it. 2 reasons why someone doesn't accept evolution: they've been misinformend. they're ignorant on the matter.Most times both are true. But somehow, I do believe that in a couple of generations history books will have a chapter describing this madness of religion.I want my gravestone to say that I wasn't part of it.
Kamran Vaccaro I don’t want to start anything or offend anyone. I’m always genuinely curious about these things as an atheist and love asking questions to understand more about people beliefs. May I ask if god created the universe then what created god?
Darwinian evolution has long failed even Darwins requirements. It's the biggest absurdity perpetuated in modern science till covid hit and masks suddenly worked on aerosolized virions and standing 6 feet from someone did something among the rest of the absurdity.
Fun fact about the human's blind spot. The brain is able to use previous information to patch in the blind spot. You can learn more about this in Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by Leonard Mlodinow
could some smart evolutionist explain to me, how unguided natural process knows, how to interpret RGB data sent from eyes to the brain's image processor? In other words, how unguided natural process knows how to assign the correct colors to the specific RGB data input? Don't forget, human eye can recognize 10 millions colors. This is what bothers me a lot.
The process is not exactly “unguided” because it’s not random. The environment picks out and amplifies the advantageous mutations and filters out the rest. To answer your question, the process is very iterative and gradual and as the video described it there were many intermediate forms of eye between single cell and human eye. All of the intermediate forms were useful to the organism.
***** the irreducible complexity argument is bullshit - the features of the eye co-evolved into an interactive relationship - the dependence on each other developed during the evolution process
- the flat earth thought was based on the bible not on science - read this scientific review of the evolution of the vertebrate eye - it includes fossil record, genetics and proteomics of the eye evolution and developement - it also contains open questions as well as further sources for your interest www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/ and no - the theory is based on the data
***** Actually, more than a thousand years ago, we knew that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes discovered that the Earth was round and estimated its circumference.
The ignorance... You Atheists are clowns. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You really are a veritable mine of misinformation, aren't you? Whether through genuine ignorance or malicious deceit I can't say, but you and your nonsensical assertions emit a suspicious whiff of trollery. This dialogue is now concluded. Have a nice day :)
@@noneofyourbeeswax01 Nah you are just wholly scientifically illiterate and clearly struggle extensively to comprehend such topics. While evolutionary scenarios, as opposed to worked-out theories, exist for hypothesizing how new genera, new orders, and new families of animal life might appear, there is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. Of the 182 animal skeletal designs theoretically permitted by the laws of physics, 146 appear in the Cambrian explosion fossils. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes, and digestive tracts that include mouths and anuses. Virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. The moment oxygen levels in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans permit the existence of Cambrian animals, they suddenly appear. The Cambrian explosion occurs simultaneously with the drastic change in sea chemistry known as the Great Unconformity. The Cambrian explosion includes the most advanced of the animal phyla, chordates, including vertebrate chordates. Both bottom-dwellers and open ocean swimmers appear simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. Optimization of the ecological relationships among the Cambrian animals, including predator-prey relationships, occurred without any measurable delay. Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912. Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist 32 (February 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123. Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
I wish they will someday invent a camera that can do as good as eyes in terms of focusing and managing big differences in brightness between two zones in order to display vivid colors and details both from from the sky and the ground on a sunny photo
He is right. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
Ashton Simmons This is an exact quote from his book _The Origin Of Species_ "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, *absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." - Charles Darwin I don't see any quote mining here. It's true that he thought that the idea that evolution made eyes was quite absurd, but that reason told him it must be true.
TheLeftLibertarianAtheist Yeah, someone flagged as spam. I've read the origin of species. It was just that stupid people, will take that line alone and run with it. Just like calling evolution a theory. Don't call it a theory around layman, because they don't know scientific definitions for words
+Albert Guilmont That's about how easy they make eye evolution seem. You would think natural selection just went shopping at the biological Walmart and anything and everything it needed was right there on the shelves for purchasing or shop-lifting.
Kristen Michelle You don't understand what Evolution is. Yet, you complain about the super-resistant bacteria from hospitals! Or blame the Govt for spreading them... You should learn what Evolution is from proper books, not from Sunday school!
We don't need to have the best vision or the perfect eye because we can create things that will improve our vision over other animals such as a telescope, knight vision and so forth. Our eye may not seem "perfect" but with our brains we can do many things to improve on our vision. Our eye is all we need
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
I would totally get rid of the blind spot and maybe make the lens out of different material, since it is easily damaged by prolonged staring at the screen, especially at a young age, when if you don't stare at the screen - you don't get all that information from the internet.
I came here looking for how the eye evolved. Instead I found out some facts about cells and got to look at all the different parts of the eye that came about for no reason. Thanks
No. You think this video has good explanation about the evolution of eyes? Which evolve first? The visual cortex, the optic nerve, or the eyes? How about the tear gland? In this video they all magically appeared. "In your face"... you are an idiot.
You look to much creationist irreducible complexity videos. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of biology and I wonder if you have even seen this video.
this is quite funny: this video sums up to the "evolution did it" explanation... this is pure imagination... I never knew natural selection and random mutations were so powerful as to create "shape-shifting" effects as well as appearance of functional lens, sclera and tear glands ... I think someone is giving natural selection and random mutations super powers here...
13thxenos Intelligent Design offers a much reasonable explanation: the eye is irreducibly complex: lets take the lens as an example... if we take away the lens, the eye totally looses accommodation... without this, the eye is practically useless... a step backward in the evolution of the human eye doesn't seem feasible in this sense because a lens-less human eye can't aid any form of survival... aside that, gaining a functional lens would require equivalent evolution in the brain as said, and addition of complementary parts like the suspensory ligaments to hold the lens in place: without all the required parts, adding a lens to an eye is impossible since Natural selection would quickly get rid of the non-functional parts... if parts are added simultaneously, the we're already looking at design... the truth is this video relies on imagination because no one can effectively simulate the steps and transitions required to evolve all 20+ parts of the human eye from a simple light receptor... if a simulation is made, then the transitions would have to fight it out with Natural selection... so it's unlikely that the human eye evolved by natural selection... very unlikely I'd say...
Benjamin Toby um, thanks for the long reply, but you didn't provide any evidence. You just declared evolution of eyes with lens, and a brain with the capacity of processing the images simultaneously, highly improbable. Which in it self, is not an evidence of a designer, once you consider the huge number of years it had to gradually produce each part of the eye. Let me give you an example, suppose I show you a million dice, all of them 1s. Surly you would think that I arranged them that way. But there is another way that could have happened. There were a billion of them, and I through them a billion times too. It wouldn't be that improbable if a million of them would be ones. Even a million of the in a row, in one of the steps. So highly it is not highly improbable, if you can consider the age of the universe, and if you can imagine the different ways natural selection can changes things. But, even if it were really improbable, on a scale that we couldn't even consider this explanation of things, no evidence points to a designer.
Yes obviously this planet was created for the benefit of the immortal jellyfish and the octopus, which are obviously are the favoured species. Immortality and superior eyesight... Case closed... Magic invisible thing made it for them.... 😂🤣🤣 For the hard of thinking... This is a joke.
Question: Is it true that because the human eye evolved from the eyes of an ancestor that lived in the water, thus having a basic structure developed for use in an aquatic medium first and foremost, our eyes could never be as advanced or accurate as those of aquatic lifeforms, due to the change in medium (water to air)?
Seems plausible to assume the liquid in the eye is an improvement however most invertebrates seem to have a LUCA with an eye. I.e. I think the human eye is too far down the evolutionary tree for being "evolved in water" is seen as a competitive advantage over say a frog, dog, bird. And remember it doesn't have to be liquid, Trilobites used a crystal structure so fundamentally different and who knows how that could have ended up.
Very much looking forward to and paying attention to bio-mechancal eyeware development in our future. I myself am keratoconic, and short of getting a corneal transplant, which can be risky, my eyesight will slowly diminish for the rest of my life. Treatment slows it down, but can't truly solve the problem. Advancements in this tech could be potentially life changing for me.
@@sharpie6888 in human, which evolved first? The eyes, the visual cortex, or the optic nerves? Let's see who sounds silly. If you wanna come up with some conjectures, keep the silliness to yourself.
See the species just happened to have a light spot and then happened to be cup and the brain just so happens to develop to interpret the light , and then proteins appeared, cool
Willfully misrepresentation of the evolutional principles. Do you know which one? Since you will not accept anything that contradicts your bible I will not even try
Peter Scheen In this video, visual cortex and optic nerves magically appear when in fact it should be there from the get go. What's your explanation on this?
The eye is so highly complex because being such an important sense organ, having a more advanced eye would give the organism a tremendous upper hand compared to its prey and predators
I wrote a paper on how eyes evolved, and how the differing eyes in the animal kingdom helped inspire technology. The anableps was one of my subjects! I'll see if i can post it online, if anyone's interested.
So tell me how can you write a paper on eyes evolving without first looking up when all the different eye types showed up in the fossil record? Because that would have instantly contradicted the conjecture eyes evolved because virtually every eye type manifested within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. That means they never evolved.
+Joy Santos Intelligent Design is not a theory it's a make believe. Any closer look disproves it immediately unlike evolution, which is really not disproven directly like ever.
One is a theory, one is a hypothesis. The difference is that the theory (evolution) has actual, observable evidence behind it, and quite a lot of it, while the hypothesis (creationism) has no such proof.
+SeaBiscuit One (evolution) is a well supported scientific theory, and the other (creationism) is a religious myth that has been scientifically refuted.
There's an error with the tear gland position. The one the video pointed is the tear duct. The tear gland is above the eye, just beneath the eyebrow...
I've been told that I'm likely to go blind in 16 to 20 years. It's very hopeful to see that bionic eyes aren't far away! To have a functioning prosthetic eye so i don't have to be totally blind for the rest of my life seems pretty nice
"Evolution of eye is absurd" evolution of any living entity is what's absurd. Btw, I am not a creationist. Nor am I a fervent believer in the modern consensus of the origins of life
That's where abiogenisis steps in. Living organisms are machines composed of molecules and electricity. Those molecules existed before life ever did and still exist today for us to study. The origin of life is chemistry.
Billy Tragyu And why is it so difficult to accept either aspect? Do have information on a superior mechanism that better explains Earths biological advancement? Evolution is simple fact of the entire universe. Ironically, the only deliverance of absurdity here derives from you.
I agree that things like the eye are too complex to have evolved randomly. However, there is good evidence of its evolution and of common descent. A teleological view of evolution answers this as evolution is a process designed to reach certain goals.
lol, this video make me believe in God even more. no amount of will power to survive or consciousness to learn and adapt independently from an organism itself can create this.
Evolution is caused by mutation and survival of the fittest, not "consciousness to learn and adapt" Birds didn't just one day decided to grow wings lmao.
Speculation and assumption gone absolutely wild. Natural selection is comatose. It directs nothing. Random copying errors lack the power to create the required never before seen proteins. or overcome irreducible complexity such as a part of the brain that interprets signals, an optic nerve, and light sensitive cells. Individually they offer no benefit to the creature whatsoever. This video makes quantum leaps over the massive complexity involved... and hopes you will be gullible enough to swallow it. The mutation lottery had been imbued with deific powers by proponents of the theory... that would never occur in the real world. It's a lottery not a computer program. Macroevolution is a worldview... not science.
+Roen Spacy So, are you telling me that we never evolved from a cell to now? you're telling me that we had the exact same body all this time? because if so, that doesn't make sense.. How do you know for sure that evolution doesn't exist? I'm sure that humans as a species grew from a cell or new animal, to what we've become right now.
Evolution is blind, but it does have a purpose. It's purpose is to further improve an organism or species' life. Evolution is simply an organism's will to push for more effective functions. Nothing drives evolution as a whole, and it is not sentient, it is simply a change over time to help one with their bodily functions. (By the way, I'm not sure what stance you were taking, but I was saying this from an atheist standpoint)
@@treysalisbury7277 "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
When I take my glasses off it feels like I went from 4K down to 144p buffering 😂😂😂
saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame
Kanna The Great 👍
mine is far worse than 144p lol
Finn Tran
lol
Finn Tran Same thing with my left eye.
My new favorite hobby is drinking tea and looking at athiests and theists argue in the comments section of evolution videos
+Universal yep
+Universal
That's lame! My hobby is _not watching them_. Does that make me an _a-looker_?
+Universal said, "looking at athiests and theists "
Why is it that people who can spell "theist" are too stupid to just put an "a" in front of it to spell "atheist"???
DNAunion
It would make them look smart, rendering them invisible for the rest of stupid theists.
+Universal Bring your tea, follow me around and you'll stay & entertained for a long time. :) I have at least 100 comments to answer at any one time.
charles darwin stated that it seems highly absurd that eye could have evolved, however he continued the sentence stating how it could have evolved.
please dont spread misinformation.
Yeah, misquoting Darwin right from the start makes this whole video seem silly.
i stopped listening at THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED there is no hard evidence of any such thing again theory as fact THATS NOT SCIENCE THATS HUMAN EGO AT WORK
Pratyush Dam I wish Darwin had never said such a quote, because it’s been taken out of context so many times😂
Darwins original theory is from 1859 is not teached anymore. Science has progressed since then.
@@victwenty2324 Yeah! Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity are just theories!! They're not facts! Right??
Here is Darwin's quote in FULL context, it clearly demonstrates his thoughts on the matter to be quite the opposite.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, _seems_, I freely confess, *absurd in the highest degree*. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine falsebut the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
***** thank you for posting that.
Chris Corella
thnx
I was hoping someone would notice. I was dismayed to see this quote taken out of context in an educational science video.
There were various versions of the book The Origin of Species, edited by the own Darwin. The part in which he explains that maybe something as the eye could have evolved if it happened gradually was introduced just later into the book; the original version actually didn't have it, so TED is right when it says that Darwin thought the eye couldn't have evolved from natural selection. It just didn't say that Darwin rethought this later in his life.
Ga Brasil Ah, I didn't know that. Still, if you're going to include the quote at all it seems silly not to also mention that he revised his original thinking. It's an omission that can potentially supply creationists with more "fodder" for their "argument".
If i could design an eye i would make one without astigmatism.
Also without needing any liquid that can be easily swept away by dry air.
Well god did that just because he's a grumpy warlord that always seems in need for people affirming his ego so he designs flawed thing and laughs at seeing it fail :p
or floaters.
My design would have a system which stops eyelashes from falling into it.
CosmicD haha he wants us to suffer cancer, diseases, viruses, and other nasty things. Such a "loving" god isnt he? useless and undeserving of worship!
A tough topic to cover in such a limited time. I think you've done very good job TED-ED team.
This is great. There's one small thing. It was recently discovered that some supporting cells in the retina called Muller glial cells act as fibre optic cables and focus the light onto each individual photoreceptor. So although it appears like the retina is in backwards, it may actually work MORE efficiently the way it is. Your point stands for the blind spot though...
Its not like the blind spot impairs every day tasks and nobody really experiences that the blind spot gets in the way of what theyre doing- in fact, no one normally really NOTICEs it without actively trying to, so I feel that this 'blind spot' argument isn't very strong.
More I read less I understand
To be fair, I've heard that Charles Darwin gave an explanation for the evolution of the eye, he just introduced it by saying that often misunderstood line.
+Volantis Acedia Correct. Darwin sometimes played both sides of the debate himself: he would state the problem and then give a possible solution. The creationists leave out the second part: it's sad that this video did too.
Look up Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cell to the superior eye of the octopus..
2:00 Transparent humor? I don't see how that's funny.
Your profile pic fits perfectly.
2:00
PickyMcCriticalthat's ,what makes it funny
that's because your sense of humor is like the retina
As of Oct. 5th, at least four people did not get the pun and decided to tell me about it.
I'm so glad to be alive. TedEd makes me realize how beautiful it is to be alive. Thank you.
It's not a question of maybe. Artificial eyes will one day surpass our natural ones. You could say that for any part of the body, including the brain.
Wan to have Robo eye now!
yea, humans really don't have the best vision out of a lot of animals
I wonder if mental illness will be replicated in ai that advanced.
I agree. I honestly believe that will be the eventual next step in evolution for humans. Why wait for the bumbling processes of natural evolution to take millions of years when we can design better humans in a generation or two? Then again maybe we will kill ourselves off with our own stupidity before we ever "transcend".
It's ironic that we are so smart that we could potentially unlock immortality while simultaneously being so stupid that we may never get there.
Except not, our brains are not built to hold such complex eyes it won't even be possible. We need a more developed visual cortex to even handle or comprehend a better image.
2:58 "far from being an *eyedeal* masterpiece..."
I bet nearly everyone looked off to somewhere else when he said "it can change from this scene to the distant horizon in less than 1/3 of a second"
I know this isn't related, but I really like this narrator. His voice sounds really nice and makes me pay attention more
Ok simp
if I want to change my eye, I would want 5 x more rods and 32 different color receptor types.
NotPickyButStrict
I wouldn't want 5x more rods because everything would be 5x brighter and your iris would have to work harder so you wouldn't be blinded a that would cause aches, but I really love your idea of 32 colors receptor types and wish I had 5x more color receptors.
Yeah, many cones! I want to see true yellow and mix red with green, I want to see the not so dangerous part of UV light! For that, really, I would only need 5 types of cones. Infrared or lower would make everything glow, so maybe if I could turn it on and of in my volition it would be fine. Too high on the UV spectrum as well as more energetic colors and my eyes will get damaged. There isn't a lot of short-wave light on Earth anyways.
I don't your brai or your eyes would like that.....
why am I binge watching these videos?...
Why not
Tundra wolf I am because I am sick and my mom says I have to watch educational things.
@@tuckertechnolord6126 :C I am watching cus I like it
Epic video. Love it! That inverted retina being the reason for the blind spot blew me away.
Just FYI, in the very next sentence, Darwin stated that, even though it seems improbable, he could imagine successive forms evolving even into this super complex structure.
Often it is the very next sentences that are overlooked.
@@rwomble1 or more usually deliberately ignored
Tryna fall asleep but I can't stop thinking of these *eye opening* concepts
Tear gland depicted @2:46
Is actually the drainage system. The main tear secretion gland lies in the peripheral part of the front part of the eye- socket roof.
lmao stop arguing about god n shit. somebody worked really hard to make this video and i think they deserve more than just fools arguing in the comment section. Great vid :)
You must see the absurdity of your comment. Stop bringing God into the discussion requiring God to understand. And only discuss evolution to further the theory. In other words, evolution cannot stand on its own if we bring God into it, so please don't bring God into it. Close minded scientists are not searching for truth, they are demanding everyone follow their theory. That is a scary proposition... in fact more scary than following the bible because it is contrived by man.
@MAHMOUD ZORG roasted 🤣🤣🤣
@@johncesal9334 nothing is scarier than the damned book, dude
@@johncesal9334 you confused
It sucks.
My humor at a drunk party is the same as the one that fills out our eyes.
눈의 진화과정에 대하여 배웠습니다. 저의 눈에게 고마움을 느꼈습니다. 눈의 진화과정을 배우고나니 진화라는 것이 정말 대단한것 같습니다. 좋은 시간이 되었습니다. 감사합니다.
I love your videos. Thanks for entertaining us and giving us valuable information every week.
Fascinating video on the evolution of the human eye! It's amazing to see how our vision has developed over time. Thanks for such an insightful and well-presented explanation!
There are still people who say that the eye is too complex to evolve, but it did! But our eyes are indeed complex and I compare them to cameras. However, the eye originally was made for the water so when animals came on to land, their vision wasn't as good so the eye had to adapt overtime to adjust to life out of water.
I’m genuinely curious, how can you be so confident to make such claims? What informs you that we were all once in the sea and came to land and adjusted our eyesight.. How can you make such precise assertions on what took place over such large swaths of time I.e 100s of millions of years.
@@kolaoj5174 Lol! Nice questions
@@kolaoj5174 But god did it is such a smart assertion!
@@impedimenta934 as opposed to what… information on how to make your eyes (DNA) arising without a mind to encode all that information? There’s more chance of the entire iOS software for the iPhone coming together through a random smashing of the keyboard than your tongue - which you use to disrespect your maker - coming together by chance.
@@kolaoj5174 Hallelujah! *crazy dance*
scroll down for debate...
Yep
Minekour The only reason you're saying that is to heighten your self esteem and enlarge your ego. You are probably younger than 9 years of age.
The creations love to use the eye as a way to explain their theory's. This is what I'm going to link from now on .
What is it about this video that actually makes a good argument for evolution as opposed to a creator? All I heard were assumptions, assertions and the construction of a story line based on different eyes that *currently* exist in nature
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
@@Nawwar1980 They never had a point why are you thanking him? lmao
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep I absolutely agree
Such circular reasoning, all to try to explain away such obvious design!
As much as I like how you present it, please, one correction. Darwin did not consider the evolution of the eye to be 'absurd to the highest degree'. He used a literary device, pretending his own incredulity, before then explaining that 'even so, this is likely how it happened', and modern science has largely confirmed the scenario he set out way back then.
I ask this because that statement, 'even Darwin considered the evolution of the eye absurd', is often trotted out by those seeking to discredit evolution
Very concise on a difficult topic to illustrate! Plus, bonus points for discussing the human eye's flaws, as a little nudge and a wink to those William Paley types.
Design an eye? I want a sharingan!!!
Nature is the guiding force of evolution..oh..it's true
One Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan please
Nah man... Mangekyo Sharingan is better!
Nah fam gimme the byakugan
@@mahendravarmabheemaraju774 except when we look at the fossil record like the cambrian explosion and we see virtually every eye type manifest at the same time within a geological instant. That "evolution" thing sure is a miracle worker lol
ER-MAH-GURD!!
I love learning new scientific things, I mean, I already has a basic understanding of how the eye works and all that but It never ceases to amaze me when I watch videos like this and refresh my knowledge and learn something new :D This is so awesome!
This video is magical. And humbling! Truly, the human eye is amazing; it has always amazed me. It honestly moved me very much to remind myself of how incredible and gorgeous the result can be of something so random as evolution. That we all are beautiful compendiums of myriad "errors" or deviations from our source copy, "errors" or deviations that turned out to be more useful in our environment... well, it's just wonderful... and so much like a beautiful ballet. Cheers!
at 2:41 Those are not tear glands shown, that is the tear drainage system. The lacrimal gland is in the upper lid, and oil glands along the lid margins spread oil over the surface of the tears. Other than that (and the Darwin quote not fully explained in context) a pretty nice video.
I particularly like that at 1:20 theres an intact optic nerve running to a waiting visual cortex. I guess it had to wait a long time tho.
Why do you suppose it wasn't connected to anything?
Flies have some muscle cells almost directly connected to their eyes, enabling the rapid "reorientation" of their wings during flight in response to obstacles and threats.
i always watch Ted-eds videos.but eye dont even understand it.
radical af my man
That's disappointing since that's exactly what the videos are trying to do
@@FezCaliph lol nope I understood it does that mean it doesn't work? dummy
*How many megapixels is the human eye?* *Is it better quality than 4K ultra HD?*
COMBO maybe...
COMBO how would we see 4K ultra HD that well if our eyes were worse then 4k ultra HD
Let me tell u . Reasearch says that human eye has 576 megapixels . Much higher than 4K ultra HD
@@anonymous031 well, the rest of the story is that they SCAN, so at any one time they are something like 4-7mp, but can scan and "render" an image of 576mp.
After Darwin said that the evolution of the human eye SEEMS absurd, he went on to explain how he thought it would be possible. What he suggested was very similar to this.
Taking the quote out of context at 0:35 is a great way to confuse people. He actually described that it "seems" absurd *until* you get to understand evolution.
2:43 Tear glands give tears out the eye
This really opened my eyes.
*An ancient greek teleports into modern day*
*Christian*: Well hey there! Do you believe in Zeus?
*Greek*: Well of course!!! He is the Almighty!!
*Christian*: Well can you prove it?
*Guy nearby with umbrella gets struck by lightning*
*Greek*: SEE!!!!111!!! That's proof that Zeus exists!!!!
*Christian*: Just because you don't understand how lightning works doesn't mean Zeus did it. I on the other hand believe in God almighty.
*Greek*: Well can you prove it?
*Christian*: Well of course! You see the chart of evolution and the big bang?
*Greek*: Yeah?
*Christian*: That's the proof God exists!!!!!!111!!!!!
*Greek*: Just because you don't understand how the big bang or evolution works doesn't mean God did it.
lol yes
Gabriel Yesus amen
Then again, you can't "prove" that love exists. All you can do is provide evidence that you love, which is the same you do for asking whether or not God created the world. There is a lot of evidence for creation, but whether or not you'd accept that evidence is up for debate.
because you don't understand how the big bang happened, then something greater must have made it happen. ;)
Yet there has never been a messenger from Zeus who brought in what Zeus supposedly said. Monotheistic religions are clear in stating that God has sent messengers telling humans exactly about their test, if there is nothing to doubt then this would not be a test. So just because you have no idea what monotheism is about, does not mean it's about nothing :)
This is an amazing source of info. Thank you Ted-ed
My god, I'm in love with this vudeo! Amazing, perfect!!
I am visually impaired person suffering from macular destrophy, which was genetically disorder, which was currently untreatable so do more video about medical development about this, please sir which will help me and people like me .
You TED-ED team are truly amazing. Video after video, idea after idea. A million thanks! Gràcies!
When you can't explain it, saying god did it isn't the best idea, actually it's counterproductive. This has been going on for ages, and god of the gaps fallacy is most evident with the human eye argument. Science is taking on these difficult questions and is actually trying to find the answers, and in the meantime a religous person just says it's so complicated so god must have done it, end of story. Thank *god* I live in day and age where I can speak my mind and not die because of it.
2 reasons why someone doesn't accept evolution: they've been misinformend.
they're ignorant on the matter.Most times both are true. But somehow, I do believe that in a couple of generations history books will have a chapter describing this madness of religion.I want my gravestone to say that I wasn't part of it.
I'm a devout Muslim, and I consider the God of the Gaps argument to be the worst reason to believe in God
The Muslim Comb
It’s the only semi-logical reason to believe in god
now we just say evolution did it instead !! :D
Brate, također.
Kamran Vaccaro I don’t want to start anything or offend anyone. I’m always genuinely curious about these things as an atheist and love asking questions to understand more about people beliefs. May I ask if god created the universe then what created god?
LOL I'm with Darwin on this one.
Darwinian evolution has long failed even Darwins requirements. It's the biggest absurdity perpetuated in modern science till covid hit and masks suddenly worked on aerosolized virions and standing 6 feet from someone did something among the rest of the absurdity.
Right. Darwin said it was absurd
reminds of the first episode of cosmos: a space-time odyssey. neat stuff. love it.
Fun fact about the human's blind spot. The brain is able to use previous information to patch in the blind spot. You can learn more about this in Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by Leonard Mlodinow
could some smart evolutionist explain to me, how unguided natural process knows, how to interpret RGB data sent from eyes to the brain's image processor? In other words, how unguided natural process knows how to assign the correct colors to the specific RGB data input? Don't forget, human eye can recognize 10 millions colors.
This is what bothers me a lot.
The process is not exactly “unguided” because it’s not random. The environment picks out and amplifies the advantageous mutations and filters out the rest.
To answer your question, the process is very iterative and gradual and as the video described it there were many intermediate forms of eye between single cell and human eye. All of the intermediate forms were useful to the organism.
aggressive theists incoming...
***** the irreducible complexity argument is bullshit - the features of the eye co-evolved into an interactive relationship - the dependence on each other developed during the evolution process
- the flat earth thought was based on the bible not on science
- read this scientific review of the evolution of the vertebrate eye
- it includes fossil record, genetics and proteomics of the eye evolution and developement
- it also contains open questions as well as further sources for your interest
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/
and no - the theory is based on the data
***** you studied it? wow cool I studied biotechnology =) so why then do you use the irreducible complexity fallacy?
***** Actually, more than a thousand years ago, we knew that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes discovered that the Earth was round and estimated its circumference.
***** short question: how can you improve the star activity of restriction enzymes?
Nice job helping creatards by misrepresenting Darwin's remarks on the eye.
The ignorance... You Atheists are clowns. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You really are a veritable mine of misinformation, aren't you? Whether through genuine ignorance or malicious deceit I can't say, but you and your nonsensical assertions emit a suspicious whiff of trollery. This dialogue is now concluded. Have a nice day :)
@@noneofyourbeeswax01 Nah you are just wholly scientifically illiterate and clearly struggle extensively to comprehend such topics.
While evolutionary scenarios, as opposed to worked-out theories, exist for hypothesizing how new genera, new orders, and new families of animal life might appear, there is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear.
From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began.
Of the 182 animal skeletal designs theoretically permitted by the laws of physics, 146 appear in the Cambrian explosion fossils.
The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes, and digestive tracts that include mouths and anuses.
Virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion.
The moment oxygen levels in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans permit the existence of Cambrian animals, they suddenly appear.
The Cambrian explosion occurs simultaneously with the drastic change in sea chemistry known as the Great Unconformity.
The Cambrian explosion includes the most advanced of the animal phyla, chordates, including vertebrate chordates.
Both bottom-dwellers and open ocean swimmers appear simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion.
Optimization of the ecological relationships among the Cambrian animals, including predator-prey relationships, occurred without any measurable delay.
Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?,” BioScience 58 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912.
Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist 32 (February 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
I wish they will someday invent a camera that can do as good as eyes in terms of focusing and managing big differences in brightness between two zones in order to display vivid colors and details both from from the sky and the ground on a sunny photo
Thank you for this video. I have a test on topic - 'eye' tomorrow.
Just had my religious uncle try to say the human eye’s evolution was impossible
And he is right
He is right. "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
Quote mining on Ted-Ed.... well done
Where?
They didn't finish Darwin's quote. A popular quote that creationists love to mine that irritates me
Ashton Simmons This is an exact quote from his book _The Origin Of Species_
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, *absurd in the highest possible degree.*
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." - Charles Darwin
I don't see any quote mining here. It's true that he thought that the idea that evolution made eyes was quite absurd, but that reason told him it must be true.
Ashton Simmons Apparently, my post post doesn't show up. Can you see it if you click "view comments marked as spam", or something?
TheLeftLibertarianAtheist Yeah, someone flagged as spam. I've read the origin of species. It was just that stupid people, will take that line alone and run with it. Just like calling evolution a theory. Don't call it a theory around layman, because they don't know scientific definitions for words
How did the sharingan evolve?
The tear gland shown in 2:41 is not the tear gland but the drainage system of tears. Tear glands are found temporally in the upper eyelid.
Sclera play a major role in our social evolution, how did you not mention it?
0:41 Five hundred million million years ago...
3000 times the amount of time human have walked the earth.
God created the right eye, evolution created the left... Happy now?
+jordan ramji
Wrong. Evolution created the right eyes, God created only what's left.
+Albert Guilmont Wrong again. God created the eye. Period. Microevolution tweaked only a little bit with it.
Mikkel Lowe
I saw an eye casually walking, in my neighborhood. Is that one?
+Albert Guilmont That's about how easy they make eye evolution seem. You would think natural selection just went shopping at the biological Walmart and anything and everything it needed was right there on the shelves for purchasing or shop-lifting.
Kristen Michelle
You don't understand what Evolution is.
Yet, you complain about the super-resistant bacteria from hospitals! Or blame the Govt for spreading them...
You should learn what Evolution is from proper books, not from Sunday school!
this is why I find it so weird when theists try to use the " perfection of the eye" to prove the existence of god...
We don't need to have the best vision or the perfect eye because we can create things that will improve our vision over other animals such as a telescope, knight vision and so forth. Our eye may not seem "perfect" but with our brains we can do many things to improve on our vision. Our eye is all we need
"How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.
Revendo em maio 2024. Fantástico.
"Transparent Humor"
Wish i had my humor so transparent.
198 people can't see very well --.--
Harambe made the universe
no
@@no-lu3vb no
True
I agree, Harambe is an all-seeing supreme God.
And when he died it started a chain reaction of the universe crumbling down.
[Insert Edgy Christian Comment]
I would totally get rid of the blind spot and maybe make the lens out of different material, since it is easily damaged by prolonged staring at the screen, especially at a young age, when if you don't stare at the screen - you don't get all that information from the internet.
I came here looking for how the eye evolved. Instead I found out some facts about cells and got to look at all the different parts of the eye that came about for no reason. Thanks
+James Sullivan Ah, poor man. Stupid enough to think that a video less than 5 minutes long is going to tell you everything known about eye evolution.
+James Sullivan
Don't pay attention to DNAunion...
+J Aurelio Puente Because? Because he's stupid and I'm not?
A more sane explanation than creationism
This is an "in your face" animation for those who are able to understand. definitely liked
No. You think this video has good explanation about the evolution of eyes? Which evolve first? The visual cortex, the optic nerve, or the eyes? How about the tear gland? In this video they all magically appeared. "In your face"... you are an idiot.
You look to much creationist irreducible complexity videos. You clearly do not understand the basic principles of biology and I wonder if you have even seen this video.
Buck Rogers The optic nerve. You need that to see. An eye would be useless without it!
Vlad Parvan They evolve together. Look at the eyespot in planaria, they have a very simply neural connection from the spot to the neurons.
Peter Scheen "they evolved together", tell me, is this a conjecture or proven fact?
Not buying this explanation. God created the eye.
Blake Bush You're wrong
Pig Floyd Evidence?
2:40 those are the tear drainage systems. tear glands are located just on top of the eye
This is very educating
this is quite funny: this video sums up to the "evolution did it" explanation... this is pure imagination... I never knew natural selection and random mutations were so powerful as to create "shape-shifting" effects as well as appearance of functional lens, sclera and tear glands ... I think someone is giving natural selection and random mutations super powers here...
It's had billions of years to do it. Don't underestimate the power of natural selection.
+The Scientist OK bruh...
+Benjamin Toby You say it is "pure imagination" like there is some other explanation out there that have more evidence than evolution!
13thxenos Intelligent Design offers a much reasonable explanation: the eye is irreducibly complex: lets take the lens as an example... if we take away the lens, the eye totally looses accommodation... without this, the eye is practically useless... a step backward in the evolution of the human eye doesn't seem feasible in this sense because a lens-less human eye can't aid any form of survival... aside that, gaining a functional lens would require equivalent evolution in the brain as said, and addition of complementary parts like the suspensory ligaments to hold the lens in place: without all the required parts, adding a lens to an eye is impossible since Natural selection would quickly get rid of the non-functional parts... if parts are added simultaneously, the we're already looking at design...
the truth is this video relies on imagination because no one can effectively simulate the steps and transitions required to evolve all 20+ parts of the human eye from a simple light receptor... if a simulation is made, then the transitions would have to fight it out with Natural selection... so it's unlikely that the human eye evolved by natural selection... very unlikely I'd say...
Benjamin Toby um, thanks for the long reply, but you didn't provide any evidence. You just declared evolution of eyes with lens, and a brain with the capacity of processing the images simultaneously, highly improbable. Which in it self, is not an evidence of a designer, once you consider the huge number of years it had to gradually produce each part of the eye.
Let me give you an example, suppose I show you a million dice, all of them 1s. Surly you would think that I arranged them that way. But there is another way that could have happened. There were a billion of them, and I through them a billion times too. It wouldn't be that improbable if a million of them would be ones. Even a million of the in a row, in one of the steps.
So highly it is not highly improbable, if you can consider the age of the universe, and if you can imagine the different ways natural selection can changes things.
But, even if it were really improbable, on a scale that we couldn't even consider this explanation of things, no evidence points to a designer.
Eye - deal. Haha!:) :D;)
Yes obviously this planet was created for the benefit of the immortal jellyfish and the octopus, which are obviously are the favoured species. Immortality and superior eyesight...
Case closed... Magic invisible thing made it for them.... 😂🤣🤣 For the hard of thinking... This is a joke.
Question: Is it true that because the human eye evolved from the eyes of an ancestor that lived in the water, thus having a basic structure developed for use in an aquatic medium first and foremost, our eyes could never be as advanced or accurate as those of aquatic lifeforms, due to the change in medium (water to air)?
Seems plausible to assume the liquid in the eye is an improvement however most invertebrates seem to have a LUCA with an eye. I.e. I think the human eye is too far down the evolutionary tree for being "evolved in water" is seen as a competitive advantage over say a frog, dog, bird. And remember it doesn't have to be liquid, Trilobites used a crystal structure so fundamentally different and who knows how that could have ended up.
Very much looking forward to and paying attention to bio-mechancal eyeware development in our future. I myself am keratoconic, and short of getting a corneal transplant, which can be risky, my eyesight will slowly diminish for the rest of my life. Treatment slows it down, but can't truly solve the problem. Advancements in this tech could be potentially life changing for me.
sharigan haha
you meant Sharingan right ?! I would love that idea ! :D
This video makes evolution sounds terribly silly.
WinterXL It's so obvious that you never watch the video.
Buck Rogers creationists have always sounded silly
@@sharpie6888 in human, which evolved first? The eyes, the visual cortex, or the optic nerves? Let's see who sounds silly. If you wanna come up with some conjectures, keep the silliness to yourself.
See the species just happened to have a light spot and then happened to be cup and the brain just so happens to develop to interpret the light , and then proteins appeared, cool
Ignorant people will say they have made excellent presentation.
Willfully misrepresentation of the evolutional principles. Do you know which one? Since you will not accept anything that contradicts your bible I will not even try
Peter Scheen In this video, visual cortex and optic nerves magically appear when in fact it should be there from the get go. What's your explanation on this?
Oh well, we don't know. Must be a god.
Trying to research and find the answer, nope, just gonna say god dun did it
The eye is so highly complex because being such an important sense organ, having a more advanced eye would give the organism a tremendous upper hand compared to its prey and predators
I wrote a paper on how eyes evolved, and how the differing eyes in the animal kingdom helped inspire technology. The anableps was one of my subjects! I'll see if i can post it online, if anyone's interested.
So tell me how can you write a paper on eyes evolving without first looking up when all the different eye types showed up in the fossil record? Because that would have instantly contradicted the conjecture eyes evolved because virtually every eye type manifested within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. That means they never evolved.
10000% conjecture
As soon as he said 500 mil, I'm out
Confirmation bias much?
lol trustin god you mean trustin fiction
It is all theory. Both sides are theory. Stop bashing one another because you're all fighting over theories.
+Joy Santos Evolution isn't just a theory, it's a scientific fact
+themadman Who is the mad one it hasn't been proven. therefore, it isn't a fact
+Joy Santos Intelligent Design is not a theory it's a make believe. Any closer look disproves it immediately unlike evolution, which is really not disproven directly like ever.
One is a theory, one is a hypothesis. The difference is that the theory (evolution) has actual, observable evidence behind it, and quite a lot of it, while the hypothesis (creationism) has no such proof.
+SeaBiscuit One (evolution) is a well supported scientific theory, and the other (creationism) is a religious myth that has been scientifically refuted.
There's an error with the tear gland position. The one the video pointed is the tear duct. The tear gland is above the eye, just beneath the eyebrow...
I've been told that I'm likely to go blind in 16 to 20 years. It's very hopeful to see that bionic eyes aren't far away! To have a functioning prosthetic eye so i don't have to be totally blind for the rest of my life seems pretty nice
I mean I'm already amazed at the made-specifically-for-my-eye glass contact lenses
I thought I was going to get actual evidence for the evolution of the eye -- not just some story of how it might have happened.
"Evolution of eye is absurd" evolution of any living entity is what's absurd.
Btw, I am not a creationist. Nor am I a fervent believer in the modern consensus of the origins of life
EVOLUTION EXIST YOU DUNB FUCK
That's where abiogenisis steps in. Living organisms are machines composed of molecules and electricity. Those molecules existed before life ever did and still exist today for us to study. The origin of life is chemistry.
Firefoxynightmare I'm a bioinformatics major. All I was trying to express is my fascination with the subject.
Billy Tragyu And why is it so difficult to accept either aspect?
Do have information on a superior mechanism that better explains Earths biological advancement?
Evolution is simple fact of the entire universe.
Ironically, the only deliverance of absurdity here derives from you.
I agree that things like the eye are too complex to have evolved randomly. However, there is good evidence of its evolution and of common descent. A teleological view of evolution answers this as evolution is a process designed to reach certain goals.
lol, this video make me believe in God even more. no amount of will power to survive or consciousness to learn and adapt independently from an organism itself can create this.
Evolution is caused by mutation and survival of the fittest, not "consciousness to learn and adapt" Birds didn't just one day decided to grow wings lmao.
@@tantanmustdie evolution is a myth it never happened
@@Bajannubian095 Explain Delta and omnicron covid . explain breeding , explain life , explain My hero Tchlla.
@@orange8216 God
this is eye opening
This was great. It would've been better if color vision in reptiles -> mammals -> primates were discussed though.
Speculation and assumption gone absolutely wild. Natural selection is comatose. It directs nothing. Random copying errors lack the power to create the required never before seen proteins. or overcome irreducible complexity such as a part of the brain that interprets signals, an optic nerve, and light sensitive cells. Individually they offer no benefit to the creature whatsoever. This video makes quantum leaps over the massive complexity involved... and hopes you will be gullible enough to swallow it. The mutation lottery had been imbued with deific powers by proponents of the theory... that would never occur in the real world. It's a lottery not a computer program. Macroevolution is a worldview... not science.
The eye's refinements???....by chance?.....refinements sounds like a Creator to me.
Evolution - the new religion that expects one to believe in the fairy tale of random molecules forming incredible organisms.
Tell me you are trolling.... Please
Seonbin Song nope.
+Roen Spacy *shrugged
only science has been proven
+Roen Spacy So, are you telling me that we never evolved from a cell to now? you're telling me that we had the exact same body all this time? because if so, that doesn't make sense.. How do you know for sure that evolution doesn't exist? I'm sure that humans as a species grew from a cell or new animal, to what we've become right now.
The last 30 seconds made my day.
All I can conclude is that evolution is not blind ,
Evolution is guided with a purpose.
Evolution is blind, but it does have a purpose. It's purpose is to further improve an organism or species' life. Evolution is simply an organism's will to push for more effective functions. Nothing drives evolution as a whole, and it is not sentient, it is simply a change over time to help one with their bodily functions.
(By the way, I'm not sure what stance you were taking, but I was saying this from an atheist standpoint)
@@treysalisbury7277 "How did eyes evolve?" Not only is evolution still not a functional worked out theory but we know there was no "evolution" of the eye. Virtually every eye structure in the animal kingdom shows up together within a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. There is no simulating evolution. It's statistically impossible the logistics alone make it absurd. There have been multiple random number generator studies establishing this, not that they are even needed. It's a straightforward logical issue. Rationality does not come from irrationality.