ITS HERE! Cosmos with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Space Time Odyssey Series

Brown_Pride

All Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
6,416
Reputation
785
Daps
7,887
Reppin
Atheist for Jesus
This stuff about the eye is dope.
agreed.
Question though (and no there's not "theist ulterior motive") Is that a theory on how the eye formed or do we have fossil evidence to prove that? Shyt made sense to me just wasn't sure if it was what we "think" happened or what we KNOW and can proved happened?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,309
Reppin
The Deep State
agreed.
Question though (and no there's not "theist ulterior motive") Is that a theory on how the eye formed or do we have fossil evidence to prove that? Shyt made sense to me just wasn't sure if it was what we "think" happened or what we KNOW and can proved happened?
its observational and experimental.

Fossil evidence of that sort is hard to prove.

We study the complexity between animals and similiarity among them as well as how their traits are selected for their niche/environment

Plus...it kinda makes sense.

There are bacteria who respond to chemotaxis or basically chemical gradients in solutions. They go towards what they like and turn away from what they don't like. If that process gets more complicated over time, you end up with things that essentially end up being noses.

What we can also do is genetically create "KNOCK OUT" versions of some species. That is, remove the genetic expression of one trait that the animal normally uses and observe how the animal would react.

Some bacteria without light sensitive pigments or chemotaxis end up changing their behavior so we just do studies like that and build on it

Look up cyanobacteria. They basically respond to CERTAIN wavelengths of light (corresponding to green) and use that to create energy.
 

Brown_Pride

All Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
6,416
Reputation
785
Daps
7,887
Reppin
Atheist for Jesus
its observational and experimental.

Fossil evidence of that sort is hard to prove.

We study the complexity between animals and similiarity among them as well as how their traits are selected for their niche/environment

Plus...it kinda makes sense.

There are bacteria who respond to chemotaxis or basically chemical gradients in solutions. They go towards what they like and turn away from what they don't like. If that process gets more complicated over time, you end up with things that essentially end up being noses.

What we can also do is genetically create "KNOCK OUT" versions of some species. That is, remove the genetic expression of one trait that the animal normally uses and observe how the animal would react.

Some bacteria without light sensitive pigments or chemotaxis end up changing their behavior so we just do studies like that and build on it

Look up cyanobacteria. They basically respond to CERTAIN wavelengths of light (corresponding to green) and use that to create energy.
I'll have to read up on that. But strictly speaking are we certain about the development like that? I mean can we say with a relative degree of accuracy that it's through that process the eye was created or is there a caveat on there like, "we think" this is what happened ?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,309
Reppin
The Deep State
I'll have to read up on that. But strictly speaking are we certain about the development like that? I mean can we say with a relative degree of accuracy that it's through that process the eye was created or is there a caveat on there like, "we think" this is what happened ?
FIRST OF ALL: Science doesn't know anything 100%. You never can. Its a philosophical distinction.

SECOND OF ALL: We know a lot. You shouldn't feel any less of a person for thinking you're being arrogant about being confident in what we've learned. Don't take that away from the work of others, or yourself.

For instance: Its said that even using the same proteins and genetic substrates, eyes have independently evolved about 100 times. All you need is some photo-sensitive cells and you're off to the races in most cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

 

cinna_man

Rookie
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
255
Reputation
-160
Daps
92
Reppin
Cali
ancestor of man is to modern day man as wolves are to dogs?

In other words, could humans have been artificially selected for too? Seems like there isn't enough pressure and there's too much genetic diversity in each gene pool to really separate them, but it does make you wonder.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,309
Reppin
The Deep State

Fervid

Largest Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
2,005
Reputation
240
Daps
3,653
1395418636124_zpsa91d6190.gif
 
Top