SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Krowbar who wrote (23609)7/14/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: Grantcw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Hello Del,

I agree that there are ways to explain some of the organs being formed. I think the eye is the easiest one to explain, although I notice that the explanation is somewhat vague I'll still accept it. I'll go along with you that cells become specialized more and more.

I just think that when you really get into organs that need to work with each other to produce anything advantageous, evolution runs into a problem. The bombardier beetle is one example, but I'm sure there are others. Can anyone explain it?

God bless,

Grant



To: Krowbar who wrote (23609)7/14/1998 10:07:00 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
Eyes are embryonic brain tissue, as is the neural tube. It isn't hard to imagine the brain, as it got more and more complex, sending out more and more receptors to capture information. Kind of like a super computer establishing links to the outside world. You can see the progression of light sensitive areas (even amoebas can sense light) into eyes. And even the parallel evolution of the octopus and squid eye. But to understand the relatedness of structures, and to get a grasp on why scientists think evolution is a reasonable theory, one really needs a rudimentary grasp of embryology and comparative anatomy. It is problematic when you have to be educated to understand the theory of evolution and any idiot can "believe" in a religion and a creation myth.