This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at and is filed under Videos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Free search and download videos
worldvideogallery.com
Loading...
IMPORTANT :: YOU MUST SAVE THE FILE AS ".FLV"
Change the file name from "get_video" to "video.flv"
Tags:
Comments to “Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of the Eye || Part 1”
Leave a Reply
Bookmarks
Free search and download videos Free WordPress Theme by Template Monster
January 7th, 2009 at 19:53:07 yea dawkins is the man
January 7th, 2009 at 20:16:06 A collage professor? Is that a professor of arranging photos?
January 7th, 2009 at 20:39:05 Oh dear Richard...you're a collage proffessor and you can't eaven get a proper shirt ^^
January 7th, 2009 at 21:02:04 Wouldn't this animal (first to have a developed eye) be likely to live in an aqueous environment. There is the possibility that this animal may need some help in locating necessary nutrients (food) in the environment. PERHAPS try to imagine that the animal can detect the differences in light infromation coming from prey, and the predator.
January 7th, 2009 at 21:25:03 How do you know the eye was the last sense to evolve? Happy new year:)
January 7th, 2009 at 21:48:02 the point is that the eye could have functioned as an alert system, regardless of who triggered it. Yes, the other senses was probably not as evolves as today, but you must bear in mind, that the eye (sight) is last sense to evolve (and since they were able to survive before the development of this sense, the eye only served as an advantage). "...not have been evolved enough to tell the difference between their kind or another species..." the development of pheromones for instance.Happy new year
January 7th, 2009 at 22:11:01 Yes it would be better than being blind, but how could they sense WHAT they were seeing move? And thye other senses wouldn't help because if what you believe is true (that animals, vegetation and everthing that lives evolved from a single cell) then the senses of these animals would not have been as evolved as they are today, and they probably would not have been evolved enough to tell the difference between their kind or another species.
January 7th, 2009 at 22:34:00 of course it would be helpfull. To give you an analogy: people with destroyed visiual cortex (i.e. by meningiomas) lose their ability to see, even though the their ability to "see" movement is intact (since some of the fibres go to colliculus superior and reticular substance). This is more helpfull than not seeing anything at all. Further more, this animals wasnt complitaly depended upon their sight, but had (have) other senses as well, like i.e. smell.
January 7th, 2009 at 22:56:59 That would be no help whatsoever. They could just be seeing something else like an animal of their own kind, not a predator.
January 7th, 2009 at 23:19:58 fast changes: dark-light-dark-light etc.
January 7th, 2009 at 23:42:57 How would they sense the movements?
January 8th, 2009 at 00:05:56 "Yes, but how could the animals with the first stage eyes he talked about detect predators, acknowledging the fact that they can only see the difference between light and dark," How did these animals survive before the eye? Why do they have to see the predator? If they sense movements, they automatically raise their chances of survival, regardsless of what they're watching, since they can change their own position.
January 8th, 2009 at 00:28:55 dont forget that the predator was also blind.
January 8th, 2009 at 00:51:54 the eye amazes me but dawkins' shirt needs to go haha
January 8th, 2009 at 01:14:53 I'm willing to consider anything. I just have yet to see any proof of what Prof. Dawkins was teaching. And i admit, yes I was a little naive by thinking that dependencey on sight was that high for animals. No, the dependencey is not that high (I agree with you, they don't need sight for alot of things like searching for food, but eyesight, is neccessary for survival). I still would like to debate if are also willing to.
January 8th, 2009 at 01:37:52 You're clearly unwilling to consider anything that doesn't conform to your beliefs. Futher debate is pointless.
January 8th, 2009 at 02:00:51 Also, (sorry for not mentioning this before) they couldn't see a shadow of a predator because their eyes can only sense light- they could only tell that an animal was there (not even knowing what kind of animal it was) if the animal walked right up to them and blocked off a path of light going into the animals eye and created a black unidentifiable figure, but why would the predator do that?
January 8th, 2009 at 02:23:50 Another important consideration is that you're assuming that these animals did everything by sight. Who claimed that? Many animals navigate and forage without using eyesight of any kind. They would still benefit, however, from some light detection ability, however slight.
January 8th, 2009 at 02:46:49 What you're talking about, ultramaster, is an argument of personal incredulity. You find it hard to understand how a rudementary light detection system could offer an advantage to an animal. This makes zero difference to the fact that such a system can and does offer an advantage to an animal. Wrap your head in several layers of opaque plastic, leaving a breathing hole, and walk about. Now tell me that the little light that gets through offers no advantage over being totally blinded.
January 8th, 2009 at 03:09:48 See the phrase information supports our beliefs is contradictory itself as if there is evidence to support something it is a fact not a belief.
January 8th, 2009 at 03:32:47 (continued) then they couldn't see if a predator was aproaching, nor could they see where they were they were going and could not find were there food was. Evidently, animals that had these eyes would have died out rather quickly.
January 8th, 2009 at 03:55:46 "Firstly, no-one says that the first living animals had eyes of any kind. Secondly, all any eye does is perceive light. Thirdly, having some sensitivity to light, however small, would allow creatures to detect the looming shadow of a predator, for example, or avoid being baked by the sun by seeking shade and shelter." Yes, but how could the animals with the first stage eyes he talked about detect predators, acknowledging the fact that they can only see the difference between light and dark,
January 8th, 2009 at 04:18:45 "If the first living animals really did only have eyes that percieved light then how could they eat food, know when predators are close, or see where they where going?" Firstly, no-one says that the first living animals had eyes of any kind. Secondly, all any eye does is perceive light. Thirdly, having some sensitivity to light, however small, would allow creatures to detect the looming shadow of a predator, for example, or avoid being baked by the sun by seeking shade and shelter.
January 8th, 2009 at 04:41:44 I like Dawkins, but THIS SHIRT...
January 8th, 2009 at 05:04:43 Ah I see, your one of those closed minded evolutionists who won't even listen to anyone elses points...wouldn't want to even consider anything else hey?? Well, that is what science is NOT!! YOu do know that science is and always has been constantly changing as new evidence/findings are brought forth...but you will only hold onto your closed minded views?? I think you should open your eyes a bit man...I hope you will keep discussing with me. :)