Squid Eye. It's just so awesome that I had to tell someone... So your telling me that squid eyes and human eyes have no relation? i find that impossible to believe. my cousin is a squid and we have the exact same eyes. ...
x
Click to expand

Comments(470):

[ 470 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#191 - exotic (03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Much better
User avatar #193 to #191 - Riukanojutsu ONLINE (03/11/2013) [-]
>mac
0
#195 to #193 - lmplying has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #200 to #191 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
Many traits expressed by multiple organisms are there because those organisms shared a common ancestor. For example, apes and humans have thumbs because they share a common ancestor who also had thumbs. But, sometimes animals evolve similar traits on their own. For example, bats do not share a common, winged ancestor with birds. That's called convergent evolution. This is the case with the squid and human eyes.
User avatar #331 to #191 - youareohsowrong (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm still sitting here confused that after 3 years of FJ on a daily basis, i had to scroll back up to check filters..
#66 - richardastley (03/11/2013) [-]
Yeah?! Well why do monkeys have eyes?!
#101 - Zyklone (03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
So your telling me that squid eyes and human eyes have no relation?

i find that impossible to believe. my cousin is a squid and we have the exact same eyes.

.............seriously, no **** our eyes evolved separately
User avatar #417 to #101 - arstya (03/11/2013) [-]
Oh look, a battle thtag!
#501 to #101 - John Cena (03/12/2013) [-]
Do you have eyes like a cat? No, that is a different eye than ours too.
#106 to #101 - ripgeckosncherios (03/11/2013) [-]
are you really that stupid or just pretending?

im assuming you are sarcastic and think it is obvious our eyes evolved seperatdly, if you werent sarcastic, I am very very sorry
#113 to #106 - Zyklone (03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
no dude.....................im being serious about my cousin
#115 to #106 - bunnyears (03/11/2013) [-]
But it is obvious.
Why in the **** would Squids eyes and Human eyes be the same?
They're not the same, meaning they evolved differently.
User avatar #129 to #115 - Ruspanic (03/11/2013) [-]
It's not that obvious. Reptile, bird and mammal eyes evolved from the same common ancestor, whose eyes were homologous to the eyes of these modern animals.

But the common ancestor of vertebrates and mollusks like squid didn't have eyes - the two branches developed eyes independently of each other after they diverged.
#531 to #129 - bunnyears (03/12/2013) [-]
Which is obvious...
I actually don't understand how people can't understand this!
User avatar #549 to #531 - Ruspanic (03/12/2013) [-]
It's not that they don't understand this, it's that they're simply unaware of it. Not everyone is as familiar with evolutionary history as you are.
#118 to #101 - gisuar (03/11/2013) [-]
what this post is failing to tell you is that the exes of a squid developed out of their epidermis while human eyes developed out of neural tissue so squids eyes are basically skin and human eyes are brain material
User avatar #107 to #101 - nightmaren (03/11/2013) [-]
All life evolved from a same common ancestor. Whales, bats, horses, humans, and so on all have the same types of bones in their flipper, wings, forelegs, and hands respectively, meaning we all have a common ancestor. Our would have evolved from the same common ancestor's eyes.
What this post means is that our eyes and their eyes didn't evolve from the same common ancestor, meaning that squids would have split off from our evolutionary ancestor before it developed eyes, and so they both would have evolved separately.
#114 to #107 - Zyklone (03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
No **** .....

cephalopods and mammals are different
User avatar #125 to #114 - nightmaren (03/11/2013) [-]
We still share a common ancestor.
#375 to #125 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, ******* dinosaurs.
User avatar #459 - buttmuncherscheven (03/11/2013) [-]
too bad a group of squids aren't a squad.
#463 to #459 - thrashtilldeath (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm so sorry, but I can't resist x(
#467 to #463 - owmowmow (03/11/2013) [-]
Nether can I.
User avatar #470 to #463 - buttmuncherscheven (03/11/2013) [-]
mah bad. Sometime i forgot to has write grammer. Its' not my problem, but they'res for not teaches me betters.
User avatar #471 to #470 - thrashtilldeath (03/11/2013) [-]
You broke the combo
#8 - Matengel (03/11/2013) [-]
anyone care to explain this in stupid speak for me?
#411 to #8 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
Human have eye
Squid have eye
Squid not human
***************** .jpg
User avatar #124 to #8 - jetpistol (03/11/2013) [-]
Human and squids have the same eye-lacking ancestor and developed eyes after being separated.
0
#138 to #124 - critique has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #13 to #8 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
No problem! All living things are related to some degree. They've all evolved from one organism. Scientists can tell how closely related organisms are based on how many similarities they have because they evolved from an organism with a certain trait. For example, both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor that had thumbs. On the other hand, some organisms evolve similar structures without have a recent common ancestor. Like bats aren't closely related to birds just because they have wings. They evolved those separately. Likewise, squids and humans don't have a common ancestor who had eyes. They evolved those separately. Creationists argue that evolution must not be real because the eye is so complex that it couldn't have existed by chance. They believe there must be some intelligent design. They're right that it's super complex and it's incredible that it even happened once, but it happened twice! And from an evolutionary standpoint, that's ******* amazing!
#510 to #13 - plaruti (03/12/2013) [-]
so aside from squids, every creature with an eye is related to humans?
cant the same thing be said about insects? or any other creature that isn't related to humans that have eyes? birds, fish, turtles?

either i'm retarded, or this post is. or it's a joke and i'm not clever.
User avatar #511 to #510 - blewws (03/12/2013) [-]
Well, you're kinda right. Eyes evolve independently a lot (which I learned from this comments section, actually). But, birds, fish, turtles, and humans all share a common ancestor who had complex eyes, I think, so they already had their eyes when they branched off from each other. What I thought was cool, and still do, is that squids evolved an eye so similar to a humans despite not having acquired those eyes from a common ancestor.
User avatar #512 to #511 - blewws (03/12/2013) [-]
actually, you're pretty much totally right, plaruti haha
#513 to #512 - plaruti (03/12/2013) [-]
OK good...

so everyone thumbing this content up doesn't have a complete understanding of what is being said, and are just trying to sound smart by agreeing.

seriously this is the stupidest **** I've read in a while.

eye's evolve to adapt to environments, even though there are similar characteristics from one genus to another, that doesn't make any of it some crazy miracle. it just happens. they're eyes, they all do the same ******* thing, of course they're going to have similarities.
User avatar #514 to #513 - blewws (03/12/2013) [-]
Well, it's not a crazy miracle, but don't you think it's cool?? That after billions of years a body full of mindless atoms from around the universe now find it favorable to see? That they've become so specialized that all those thoughtless atoms are able to create a conscious being? Think about that! After billions of years, the universe forged the 7000000000000000000000000000 individual atoms that make me just so I could explain to you why it's so ******* awesome! You know what I learned in a documentary? The faster you move, the slower time moves! HOLY ******* **** ! That's time travel! I live in a universe where time travel is a ******* thing! How goddamn lucky is it that everything came together just right so that I could experience the awesomeness that is knowing about time travel! It's like the universe is a strict but fair parent who said "Oh Blewws, you've been such a good boy lately. Here! Have some of my infinite wonder and knowledge! Now go play with your friends online!"
User avatar #9 to #8 - thinkwithportals (03/11/2013) [-]
Squid eye different from human eye
miracle of nature
#10 to #9 - Matengel (03/11/2013) [-]
so most eyes are similar to humans.
roger dodger.
User avatar #11 to #10 - thinkwithportals (03/11/2013) [-]
Yeah I guess its the fact that there is something as complicated as an eye in nature, and that it evolved to work as an eye more than once.
#383 - moustachefingers (03/11/2013) [-]
As a bio major, I give you my two cents FJ:   
   
One common ancestor that squids and humans shared was a strange little creature called Anomalachairus, a kind of pre-chordate who's decendants would go on to develop a notochord (primitive spinal chord).  It was part of a class of creatures called the eurypterids.     
   
It was aquatic and looked a lot like a scorpion but swam and was about a meter long.  Fossils of it can be found in the Burgess Shale from 500 million year ago (Cambrian period).     
   
It had simple eyes that were raised on stalks and could sense light and simple shapes, enough so that it could use them to locate food and predators, ect...   
   
Eyes were a pretty 			*******		 revolutionary thing and two very different creatures evolving in the same way (i.e. squids & humans) is called convergent evolution and happens all the time in biology:  Sharks and dolphins evolving some of the same traits for an open ocean pelagic existence.     
   
TL;DR:  Useful things often evolve at different times in nature and this is incredible.  Squids & humans shared ancestors way back in the day.
As a bio major, I give you my two cents FJ:

One common ancestor that squids and humans shared was a strange little creature called Anomalachairus, a kind of pre-chordate who's decendants would go on to develop a notochord (primitive spinal chord). It was part of a class of creatures called the eurypterids.

It was aquatic and looked a lot like a scorpion but swam and was about a meter long. Fossils of it can be found in the Burgess Shale from 500 million year ago (Cambrian period).

It had simple eyes that were raised on stalks and could sense light and simple shapes, enough so that it could use them to locate food and predators, ect...

Eyes were a pretty ******* revolutionary thing and two very different creatures evolving in the same way (i.e. squids & humans) is called convergent evolution and happens all the time in biology: Sharks and dolphins evolving some of the same traits for an open ocean pelagic existence.

TL;DR: Useful things often evolve at different times in nature and this is incredible. Squids & humans shared ancestors way back in the day.
User avatar #401 to #383 - amsel (03/11/2013) [-]
I was about to ask FJ a question that may have led to this answer when I read your post. You're a smart man, Moustache Fingers.

Might I ask how scientists have figured out the ancestry of each species to such detail? I've always been led to believe that the origin of various species (for lack of a better term) is still under some debate. Have we more or less traced the lineage back of most species?
#412 to #401 - moustachefingers (03/11/2013) [-]
Good question.

A good way to look at organisms in the past is to use the ones that are alive as a kind of field guide. Scientists look at relationships between animals that they know are already genetically linked and study their anatomy, genetic, and chemical makeup and use those same ideas on extinct organisms.

They also look for homologous organs: Organs that throughout an organism's evolutionary heritage are extremely similar and have either diminished and become useless or almost dissapeared completely. (Think about how whales have finger bones in their fins because they were once land animals).

Also, just animals with a similar anatomical makeup is often enough proof to classify extinct oranisms. This is present in dinosaurs, which are grouped into 2 categories based on their hip structure: Ornithischians and Sauricians.
#480 to #412 - John Cena (03/12/2013) [-]
Another former bio major, here. It's been a couple years, but, I could've sworn there were actually three groups for the categorization of dinosaurs.
0
#409 to #401 - blewws Comment deleted by blewws [-]
#474 to #383 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
You sure it's called like that, because google gives me nothing
#388 to #383 - kahandran (03/11/2013) [-]
I learned something interesting today.
Here, have a pug.
0
#433 to #388 - watchinniggazdrop has deleted their comment [-]
#212 - decoyoctopus (03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Watch it stare into your soul...
User avatar #56 - fancys (03/11/2013) [-]
I need better wording to be able to understand this..
#57 to #56 - tommythek (03/11/2013) [-]
As animals evolved, many of the shared traits between species are the same or at least similar because the two species at some point shared a common ancestor that had that trait.

Humans and squids are very distantly related, meaning our last common ancestor with squids had lived a really really long time ago. This common ancestor did not have eyes like the ones seen today (if anything it may have had little sensors that somewhat recognized light). This means that the eyes that humans have and the eyes that squids have both evolved completely separately, even though they are so similar. This type of phenomenon is known as convergent evolution.
User avatar #341 to #57 - damnpolice (03/11/2013) [-]
You somehow have just helped with me with my evolution assignment for college as i was stuck on convergent evolution, thanks!!
User avatar #309 to #57 - fancys (03/11/2013) [-]
Thank you. That cleared it up quite well.
#378 to #57 - samjamfan (03/11/2013) [-]
no, i think this is implying that we had no common ancestor whatsoever
no, i think this is implying that we had no common ancestor whatsoever
#397 to #378 - tommythek (03/11/2013) [-]
Nope, it implies that the eyes we have and the eyes that squids have both evolved after the two had branched off from their common ancestor.
#121 to #57 - bulbakip (03/11/2013) [-]
And that's why aliens will be humanoids... fer' shure... I can hope right?
User avatar #142 to #121 - burningsmurfs (03/11/2013) [-]
I have heard that they would be nothing like us and also that they would be exactly the same. I always found that interesting to theorize about. I happen to remember the movie K-PAX where Kevin Spacey was trying to convince people he was an alien and they were like "oh so you just happen to look like humans perfectly? how convenient."

Spacey replied something like..."Why is a bubble round? because it is the most energy efficient shape." So he was saying that things would develop similarly because it was the easiest way for it to happen in nature. I always liked that part.
#144 to #142 - bulbakip (03/11/2013) [-]
I saw that movie. but HE was just crazy wasn't he?

also, more convergent evolution
#152 to #144 - burningsmurfs (03/11/2013) [-]
Ah yeah I think you were supposed to leave with the impression he just was bonkers although I have heard some people say when the "time limit" ran out he "beamed" out of his shell (Spacey's body) and went back to his own in space because science space magic or something. I just thought the remark about the easiest shape in nature thing was very interesting and relevant.

My only star trek pic I have to reply with also.
User avatar #169 to #152 - bulbakip (03/11/2013) [-]
I like talking about aliens. You need to login to view this link ok-like.htm two minute vid. discuss with me? :)
User avatar #173 to #169 - burningsmurfs (03/11/2013) [-]
Ah it says the page is down I think I might have seen it though. I s it where they talk about different planets and what might live on them and there were like cloud monsters and junk living in gas planets or something?
User avatar #58 to #57 - antiphates (03/11/2013) [-]
Except I'm pretty sure the common ancestor did have eyes. It was the flat worm if I'm not misstaken.
#59 to #58 - tommythek (03/11/2013) [-]
The common ancestor did have eyes in a sense, but with nowhere near the amount of complexity of the eyes humans have today. The common ancestor would have been one shared between mollusks and mammals, and many mollusks have very simplistic eyes or no eyes at all. The amazing part of the post is how both squids and humans evolved eyes of such extreme complexity each on their own.
User avatar #60 to #59 - antiphates (03/11/2013) [-]
Valid point. Another, perhaps better, example of convergent evolution would be that of wings. (Insects, pterodactyls, birds and bats all have well-functioning wings (save perhaps insects, their wings are not THAT good))
#65 to #60 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
ted - ideas worth spreading - Michael Dickinson: How a fly flies
watch it, it takes some time but i personally think its really interesting.
http://www . ted . com/talks/michaeldickinsonhowafly_flies.html
User avatar #316 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/11/2013) [-]
Actually over 50 completely different eyes have evolved at different times. Eyes are complex, they just happen to be easy to build as well.
User avatar #332 to #316 - Keoul (03/11/2013) [-]
Eye don't believe you.
hue
User avatar #333 to #332 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/11/2013) [-]
It's true, I cone even show you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

because wikipedia is truth, wikipedia is law
User avatar #335 to #333 - Keoul (03/11/2013) [-]
You win this round!
User avatar #352 to #335 - crownofroses (03/11/2013) [-]
I love you because you made Emi-eyed Hanako
#496 to #352 - Keoul (03/12/2013) [-]
Daww thanks man!
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
User avatar #551 to #496 - crownofroses (03/12/2013) [-]
Emi-eyed Hisao? ^___^
User avatar #361 to #333 - beamersmack **User deleted account** (03/11/2013) [-]
Now bring us a source that isn't wiki.
#20 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
The idea that all life on Earth came form a common ancestor is scientific fact. I don't see how it's debatable.

Regardless, nature is frickin' sweet just as long as you're not int he thick of it.
User avatar #21 to #20 - aldheim (03/11/2013) [-]
It is actually debatable, and while it's certainly prevalent, the idea that there is one singular common ancestor is not the only available scientific theory.

I don't know the specifics.
#24 to #21 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
I heartily disagree; our DNA's subcomponents, as far as we're aware, share the same features (right-handed, left-handed). It's been a few years so I don't recall the specifics -- just enough to say that the theory of evolution is interconnected with more than two or so dozen other fields that form a larger, more complex working theory that continues to acquire more and more support for itself.   
   
If you don't want to read mountains of textbooks and papers, there're some decent videos on YouTube that'll get the point across. I recommend AronRa.
I heartily disagree; our DNA's subcomponents, as far as we're aware, share the same features (right-handed, left-handed). It's been a few years so I don't recall the specifics -- just enough to say that the theory of evolution is interconnected with more than two or so dozen other fields that form a larger, more complex working theory that continues to acquire more and more support for itself.

If you don't want to read mountains of textbooks and papers, there're some decent videos on YouTube that'll get the point across. I recommend AronRa.
User avatar #25 to #24 - aldheim (03/11/2013) [-]
It didn't say I supported the other theories.
But they are there.
User avatar #22 to #20 - aldheim (03/11/2013) [-]
Actually, a comment below mine brings up the point quite well...
#14
#26 to #22 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
I jumped the gun; I read about that last year but I'm not sure if they would genetic similarities or not. With that in mind, most life shares the same genetic makeup; at least enough to be loosely related.   
   
The post was intended to ward off Creo-tards, but it looks like I took some friendly fire from the flank.
I jumped the gun; I read about that last year but I'm not sure if they would genetic similarities or not. With that in mind, most life shares the same genetic makeup; at least enough to be loosely related.

The post was intended to ward off Creo-tards, but it looks like I took some friendly fire from the flank.
-5
#37 to #20 - fingapopyabuttho has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #37 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm a regular scumbag poster.

But really, if you want to know about evolution & related topics, go hunting on Google.
-6
#39 to #38 - fingapopyabuttho has deleted their comment [-]
#40 to #39 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
Then remain ignorant, chum.
-9
#41 to #40 - fingapopyabuttho has deleted their comment [-]
#42 to #41 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
Might as well say you don't believe in gravity.
-3
#43 to #42 - fingapopyabuttho has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #53 to #42 - uberhans (03/11/2013) [-]
gravity is a flawed theory. Try "might as well say you don't believe in the fifth force constant." You'll get your point across much more clearly
User avatar #52 to #42 - douthit (03/11/2013) [-]
Not really, because you can see gravity working right in front of you.
User avatar #67 to #52 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
You can see evolution work right in front of you! When hand sanitizer says "Kills 99.99% of bacteria", that .01% has mutated to be resistant to hand santitizer. That's all evolution is.
User avatar #73 to #67 - douthit (03/11/2013) [-]
Even the most religious believe in "micro" evolution, like mutations. What many don't believe in is that living matter first came from nonliving matter, and that everything alive today came from one-celled organisms. That's what can't be observed. Of course a scientist would say we see various stages today, and that fossil records show all evolution at different steps, but those who don't buy into "macro" evolution just see those as different--some failed (extinct)--species.
User avatar #91 to #73 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
Ah, I see. Well 1) Evolution DOES NOT explain where life came from. It has nothing to do with that. Evolution does not say that all living things came from nonliving matter. That's a totally different idea. 2) Even that has evidence to back it up. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment (one of my favorites) where they simulated the conditions at the early stages of Earth. Volcanic activity at the time would have released CO2, N2, H2S, and SO2 as well as water. They basically just put all of those chemicals in a jar, ran some electricity through it, and voila! Over 20 naturally occurring amino acids! One of the most important types of molecules for life to exist!
User avatar #51 to #41 - douthit (03/11/2013) [-]
I believe in microevolution, even though I know that's technically not the name for it.
User avatar #162 to #51 - coolcalx (03/11/2013) [-]
macroevolution is the same thing as microevolution, just on a larger time scale.

Occam's Razor tells you that it's ridiculous to accept microevolution but not macroevolution.
User avatar #485 to #162 - douthit (03/12/2013) [-]
Okay, I'll rephrase it. I'm open to the idea that large-scale evolution could take place, but I don't believe the universe--let alone the Earth--is old enough for it to have had time to happen. Aaaaaaaand here come the insults.
User avatar #498 to #485 - coolcalx (03/12/2013) [-]
fair enough.

I think you're probably in the right to question that.

still, 4.5 billion years is quite a long time.
#46 to #20 - IAMDIZZYONFANTA (03/11/2013) [-]
All things are debateable. It's still debated in Biology evolutionary circles.
#127 to #20 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
I know i'm gonna get thumbed down relentlessly for this, that's why im posting as anon.
Care to cite some proof? Something tells me you just read what a bunch of people on the internet thought and now you think it too.
#146 to #127 - Airmanator (03/11/2013) [-]
Read any [solid] high school or college textbook covering the subject. Some textbooks have Creationism in them or are outdated, but they're rare.
Read any [solid] high school or college textbook covering the subject. Some textbooks have Creationism in them or are outdated, but they're rare.
User avatar #348 to #20 - elcreepo (03/11/2013) [-]
I understand that, but only at the single cell or amoebae life form stage.

I don't believe that there's a dog/human/bird/reptile hybrid with eyes (instead of photo receptors) somewhere down the line.
#285 - lulzitsdalton (03/11/2013) [-]
I always find it funny when people say "Eyes are too complex to have evolved!"

It's really not that far-fetched/complicated. Photoreceptive cells are beneficial to just about any organism, so it's no wonder that organisms who developed them survived to reproduce; and with time and numerous changes (for example, the number of the cells, the shape that they form) eyes as we understand them would of course develop.

I don't see what's so hard for people to understand about this and evolution in general.
User avatar #294 to #285 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I think most people just don't understand it. I think they've got misconceptions about it that make it seem ridiculous. Like some people think it explains the origin of the universe and it has nothing to do with that! It sounds crazy when they say it that way.
User avatar #308 to #285 - ninjasquirle (03/11/2013) [-]
Agreed, if most people took more advanced bio classes than what is required like zoology or botany then people would learn hows these structures function and how they came to be. Like sickle cell anemia is actually an evolutionary response to malaria because of heterozygous advantage people who are carries for sickle cell are pretty much immune to malaria while not having the major problems of sickle cell. Eyes are the same way, take for instance clams and bivalves which evolved eyesight to determine when its light out to open up and let the algae in the shell photosynthesize. Go back further to things like eye spots on Euglena which is just a cell that reacts to light and based off the chemical reactions which is affected by the amount of light the Euglena can than tell which direction it should move in.
User avatar #64 - darkoblivion (03/11/2013) [-]
squid eyes have no blindspots...
#408 - phuckinthingsucks (03/11/2013) [-]
Post about evolution suddenly everyone's a fricken scientist
Post about evolution suddenly everyone's a fricken scientist
User avatar #418 - Omegashenron (03/11/2013) [-]
I dont get it.
User avatar #437 to #418 - gammajk (03/11/2013) [-]
A lot of animals develop features from a common ancestor. I.E. Animal A provides the basework for having a tail, and it's descendants all have tails. But in cases like these, Animal A and Animal B both evolve the same features completely separately, with the descendants having the same features but in completely different evolutionary trees.
+4
#387 - kokanium **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #389 to #387 - fuckberries (03/11/2013) [-]
well at the depts squids live at, there's extremely little to no light at all, so seeing different colors is a possibility.
#390 to #389 - comanderspy (03/11/2013) [-]
or not, you know... because color is the reflection of light!
User avatar #393 to #390 - fuckberries (03/11/2013) [-]
and don't eyes interpret that refraction of light? hence why some people are color blind?
#402 to #393 - comanderspy (03/11/2013) [-]
yes, but that is a genetic disorder, that wasnt supposed to happen. look at a mole, genetically engineered to live underground, never seeing any light, its eyes; completely useless, its blind, because it doesnt need to see color. its like having a blu-ray dvd and no blu-ray device, sure you have super HD graphics, but you cant ******* use them or see them!
User avatar #403 to #402 - fuckberries (03/11/2013) [-]
Well I apologize for this misunderstanding. Thank you for at least being nice about correcting me fellow citizen.
#404 to #403 - comanderspy (03/11/2013) [-]
my pleasure...
#338 - silkydelicious (03/11/2013) [-]
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance TWICE that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the eye is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
User avatar #368 to #338 - jempa (03/11/2013) [-]
I like how you bring "god" into the subject with no connection whatsoever
User avatar #369 to #368 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I don't think you get it...
#395 to #338 - comanderspy (03/11/2013) [-]
WUT?!   
this makes so much sense
WUT?!
this makes so much sense
#461 to #338 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
"it could not have"

okay... L
#345 to #338 - demonsoldier (03/11/2013) [-]
HITCHHIKER'S AWWWW YEAH
User avatar #343 to #338 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I will never regret posting this content if only because it led to this amazing comment. Thank you for letting me be a part of this.
User avatar #381 to #338 - blueghost (03/11/2013) [-]
Coincidentally, today is Douglas Adams' birthday
#430 - I Am Monkey (03/11/2013) [-]
It's called convergent evolution. It happens a lot actually, birds, insects, mammals and even fish all evolved wings separately too.
User avatar #435 to #430 - halor (03/11/2013) [-]
its also the reason why fish,penguins, and sea bound mammals have the same general tapered body shape, it just freaking works
#391 - iamphoenix (03/11/2013) [-]
Not by chance. The eye serves similar functions to both creatures, and as an actual expert would point out, we share a common ancestor.
User avatar #399 to #391 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
Well all living things share a common ancestor. But squids and humans don't share one that had eyes.
#400 to #399 - iamphoenix (03/11/2013) [-]
Scroll down and read the post by the bio major.
User avatar #405 to #400 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I am a bio major! Eyes are not the same as eye spots! Some animals still have eye spots and some animals have evolved incredibly different eyes! The nautilus has an eye completely different from a squid or a human. It's incredible that the two eyes evolved so similarly.
User avatar #414 to #405 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
youre a bio major? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
#415 to #414 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
****		 yeah I am, jackass!
**** yeah I am, jackass!
User avatar #416 to #415 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
prove it
User avatar #419 to #416 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I don't even know how i'd do that... I was trying to explain something to you and you got all pissy. I'm sure moustachefingers knows what he's talking about, but I'm just explaining something to you that you clearly don't understand.
User avatar #420 to #419 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiight
User avatar #421 to #420 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I just don't get you, man...
#429 to #421 - lolsrsslybro (03/11/2013) [-]
thumbed you back up to neutral. that guy you're replying to is a complete retard.
User avatar #432 to #429 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
prove it
#442 to #432 - lolsrsslybro (03/11/2013) [-]
who are you to judge who has a bio major and who doesn't? what blewws said was completely logical and is just as plausible as everything else in the comment section. you just decided to doubt his word for no reason. why didn't you ask the self-proclaimed bio major below to prove his claim?

(i'm not saying that we should believe everything we see on the internet, i'm just saying you had as much reason to doubt anyone else and yet you call blewws out for no reason)
User avatar #444 to #442 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
and?
#446 to #444 - lolsrsslybro (03/11/2013) [-]
and...nevermind. you're just retarded. no use replying after this, have a nice day.
User avatar #449 to #446 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
lol u mad
User avatar #426 to #421 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
i can thumb down every single one of your comments too
User avatar #423 to #421 - Gellfling (03/11/2013) [-]
the only thing here to understand is you arent a bio major
User avatar #161 - davidokuro (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm dubious about this. Not hating on you, but can you give me a citation? There are examples of eyes on life forms dating back to some of the earliest life forms so I think it might be a homologous structure. I could be wrong since I have no idea, but it makes sense to me that we are both evolved from a previous ancestor. Most multicellular life forms have eyes after all.
#168 to #161 - rprol (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm going with you on this. I thought previously that eyes evolved from light sensitive dots. just because those dots then took different paths down evolution doesn't mean they didn't start out the same.
User avatar #171 to #168 - davidokuro (03/11/2013) [-]
That's exactly what I'm saying. Their eye is a cup-form eye, which is definitely capable of becoming like ours. I think it was in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District debate that i saw the explanation. I think Carl Segans brief explanation of evolution from his cosmos series describes it, but i could be wrong. I don't have the facilities to check right now :/
#172 to #161 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
I'm sorry. I don't actually have a citation. I'm a Biology Major and we were discussing mollusks in my Zoology class. My professor brought it up. I should've double checked before posting. But, I do have this cladogram! Humans are part of phylum Chordata and squids are part of phylum Mollusca. You can see that we split apart at the node labeled "bilateria" which is pretty far back. After that, the only organisms with eyes (in a traditional sense) are chordates and mollusks. Other animals, like flatworms, have eye spots but they evolved on there own also. Obviously, I'm not an expert source so I'll be looking!
User avatar #175 to #172 - davidokuro (03/11/2013) [-]
Just watch the Dawkins videos in the other comment i left and tell me what he says. I'm in class right now and can't actually watch the videos lol Dawkins is a biologist so I would assume he knows his **** .
User avatar #179 to #175 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
He very quickly mentions squids in the second video when he says "And so the squid developed a lens and we did at another point in time." I think our common ancestor must have had some sort of light sensitive sense organ but the rest evolved independently. Awesome video! I'm psyched I got to watch that!
User avatar #181 to #179 - davidokuro (03/11/2013) [-]
Good to know. So the base structure evolved together, and the rest was independent?
User avatar #189 to #181 - blewws (03/11/2013) [-]
Seems like it. Let me know what you think because I haven't watched the shorter video yet and he doesn't go into great detail about how each species evolved the eye. I think both humans and squids shared a common ancestor that had a path of light sensitive cells, like an eyes pot on a flatworm, and evolved independently from there. What I was definitely wrong about is how complex the eye really is! I mean, it is pretty complicated, but the evolution of the eye is so simple and so quick that it's not at all unbelievable that they'd evolve separately!
User avatar #184 to #181 - davidokuro (03/11/2013) [-]
Class is over now, I can't wait to get home to watch that video now :)
#188 to #161 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
the anscestors of molluscs and humans diverged before the development of eyes, I dont think they share any homology. the eye has definitely evolved more than twice anyway.
#202 to #161 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
They are homologous but they go waaaay back, as opposed to our eyes and bird (which has the same structure but some changes eg. birds have + fovea (so sharper vision) but it's the same structure as a human eye but the squid eye actually has a different structure so from that homologous structure way back when there were two evolutionary paths taken one for the eye's we have and share with a lot of other animals and the one's mollusks have
#207 to #161 - John Cena (03/11/2013) [-]
Read any bio textbook (go the part about human anatomy and the eye) Literally every bio class/textbook I've been in has taught this along with eye structure (maybe I've just been lucky but until I read this post I always thought this was a kind of common fact) But if you want here's wikipedia (and sources at the bottom) [url deleted]
#476 - techketzer (03/11/2013) [-]
Three times.
[ 470 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)