Jul 9, 2025
Оfftopic Community
Оfftopic Community
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
OffTopic Community
Offtopic Forum
Evolution Bashing Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RodriguezBeefCurtain" data-source="post: 2872988" data-attributes="member: 109073"><p>This is bollocks. Half an eye is better than 49% of an eye. The notion that the eye must have been whole and complete to function is ludicrous; are you really suggesting that short-sighted people, or those with cataracts, are better off going around with their eyes shut, because they see blurrily rather than with 20-20 vision? So it is with the evolution of the eye. A primitive eye that can see shadows can enable a creature to escape a predator, which gives it an advantage over its sightless compatriots, and so enhances its chances of breeding the next generation. As the eye improves, so the functions it performs improve. But you certainly don't need a 100% functioning eye for light sensitivity to be an improvement on sightlessness. Never is it "all-or-nothing". There is also the issue of scaffolding. A gene mutates to serve a new, additional but not necesary, function. Then, as the organism in question evolves, the "scaffolding" that supported the unnecessary addition atrophies to nothing, so the mutation now becomes essential.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RodriguezBeefCurtain, post: 2872988, member: 109073"] This is bollocks. Half an eye is better than 49% of an eye. The notion that the eye must have been whole and complete to function is ludicrous; are you really suggesting that short-sighted people, or those with cataracts, are better off going around with their eyes shut, because they see blurrily rather than with 20-20 vision? So it is with the evolution of the eye. A primitive eye that can see shadows can enable a creature to escape a predator, which gives it an advantage over its sightless compatriots, and so enhances its chances of breeding the next generation. As the eye improves, so the functions it performs improve. But you certainly don't need a 100% functioning eye for light sensitivity to be an improvement on sightlessness. Never is it "all-or-nothing". There is also the issue of scaffolding. A gene mutates to serve a new, additional but not necesary, function. Then, as the organism in question evolves, the "scaffolding" that supported the unnecessary addition atrophies to nothing, so the mutation now becomes essential. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Please enable JavaScript to continue.
Loading…
Post reply
Top