saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame

Kanna The Great 👍

mine is far worse than 144p lol

Finn Tran lol

Finn Tran Same thing with my left eye.

+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.

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!

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??

+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..

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

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.

***** 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".

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.

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.....

Often it is the very next sentences that are overlooked.

@@rwomble1 or more usually deliberately ignored

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

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.

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

Ok simp

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!

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.

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*

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.

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

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 :)

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.

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

3000 times the amount of time human have walked the earth.

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.

***** 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?

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

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?

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.

+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!

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.

+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?

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.

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.

you meant Sharingan right ?! I would love that idea ! :D

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.

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?

Blake Bush You're wrong

Pig Floyd Evidence?

Confirmation bias much?

lol trustin god you mean trustin fiction

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

An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory i

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.

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.