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. ... Squid Eye It's just so awesome that I had to tell someone So your telling me squid eyes and human have no relation? i find impossible believe my cousin is a we the exact same
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (470)
[ 470 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
104 comments displayed.
#8 - Matengel
Reply +37
(03/11/2013) [-]
anyone care to explain this in stupid speak for me?
#411 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Human have eye
Squid have eye
Squid not human
*****************.jpg
#124 to #8 - jetpistol
Reply +5
(03/11/2013) [-]
Human and squids have the same eye-lacking ancestor and developed eyes after being separated.
#138 to #124 - critique
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#13 to #8 - blewws [OP]
Reply +15
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#511 to #510 - blewws [OP]
Reply 0
(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.
#512 to #511 - blewws [OP]
Reply 0
(03/12/2013) [-]
actually, you're pretty much totally right, plaruti haha
#513 to #512 - plaruti
Reply 0
(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.
#514 to #513 - blewws [OP]
Reply 0
(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!"
#9 to #8 - thinkwithportals
Reply +320
(03/11/2013) [-]
Squid eye different from human eye
miracle of nature
#10 to #9 - Matengel
Reply +4
(03/11/2013) [-]
so most eyes are similar to humans.
roger dodger.
#11 to #10 - thinkwithportals
Reply +7
(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.
#56 - fancys
Reply +23
(03/11/2013) [-]
I need better wording to be able to understand this..
#57 to #56 - tommythek
Reply +131
(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.
#341 to #57 - damnpolice
Reply +4
(03/11/2013) [-]
You somehow have just helped with me with my evolution assignment for college as i was stuck on convergent evolution, thanks!!
#309 to #57 - fancys
Reply +1
(03/11/2013) [-]
Thank you. That cleared it up quite well.
#378 to #57 - samjamfan
Reply 0
(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
Reply +1
(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
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
And that's why aliens will be humanoids... fer' shure... I can hope right?
#142 to #121 - burningsmurfs
Reply +2
(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
Reply +1
(03/11/2013) [-]
I saw that movie. but HE was just crazy wasn't he?

also, more convergent evolution
#152 to #144 - burningsmurfs
Reply +1
(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.
#169 to #152 - bulbakip
Reply 0
(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? :)
#173 to #169 - burningsmurfs
Reply 0
(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?
#58 to #57 - antiphates
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#60 to #59 - antiphates
Reply 0
(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 - anon
Reply 0
(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
#101 - Zyklone
Reply +86
(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
#106 to #101 - ripgeckosncherios
Reply -3
(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
Reply +2
(03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
no dude.....................im being serious about my cousin
#115 to #106 - bunnyears
Reply 0
(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.
#129 to #115 - Ruspanic
Reply -2
(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
Reply 0
(03/12/2013) [-]
Which is obvious...
I actually don't understand how people can't understand this!
#549 to #531 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(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.
#417 to #101 - arstya
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Oh look, a battle thtag!
#501 to #101 - anon
Reply 0
(03/12/2013) [-]
Do you have eyes like a cat? No, that is a different eye than ours too.
#118 to #101 - gisuar
Reply +1
(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
#107 to #101 - nightmaren
Reply +10
(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
Reply -13
(03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
No ****.....

cephalopods and mammals are different
#125 to #114 - nightmaren
Reply +1
(03/11/2013) [-]
We still share a common ancestor.
#375 to #125 - anon
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, ******* dinosaurs.
#66 - richardastley ONLINE
Reply +62
(03/11/2013) [-]
Yeah?! Well why do monkeys have eyes?!
#191 - exotic ONLINE
Reply +49
(03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Much better
#193 to #191 - Riukanojutsu
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
>mac
#195 to #193 - lmplying
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#200 to #191 - blewws [OP]
Reply 0
(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.
#331 to #191 - youareohsowrong
Reply 0
(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..
#338 - silkydelicious
Reply +17
(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.
#368 to #338 - jempa
Reply -5
(03/11/2013) [-]
I like how you bring "god" into the subject with no connection whatsoever
#369 to #368 - blewws [OP]
Reply +3
(03/11/2013) [-]
I don't think you get it...
#386 to #338 - bigredthunder
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
42
#395 to #338 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
WUT?!   
this makes so much sense
WUT?!
this makes so much sense
#461 to #338 - anon
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
"it could not have"

okay... L
#345 to #338 - demonsoldier
Reply +3
(03/11/2013) [-]
HITCHHIKER'S AWWWW YEAH
#343 to #338 - blewws [OP]
Reply +4
(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.
#381 to #338 - blueghost
Reply +4
(03/11/2013) [-]
Coincidentally, today is Douglas Adams' birthday
#23 - aldheim
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Did they actually evolve separately?
I wish to see evidence.
Because this is badass.
#27 to #23 - Airmanator
Reply -1
(03/11/2013) [-]
Convergent evolution.
#28 to #27 - aldheim
Reply +2
(03/11/2013) [-]
....Thank you for that overwhelming evidence.
#29 to #28 - Airmanator
Reply +15
(03/11/2013) [-]
No problem, bud. Because I'd love to dig up science docs for a website with pictures of cats browsed primarily by twelve-year-olds.
No problem, bud. Because I'd love to dig up science docs for a website with pictures of cats browsed primarily by twelve-year-olds.
#35 to #29 - aldheim
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
And after a brief google, I found evidence that suggests squid eyes are actually homologous to those of vertebrates.
Probably.
I've read about half of it so far.
#45 - probablynaked
Reply -25
(03/11/2013) [-]
People honestly believe that it all happened by chance, I just don't get it
#77 to #45 - Zeigh
Reply +1
(03/11/2013) [-]
A nice little chance experiment to think about is one with dice I think.
Let's say you roll three dice, you're just as likely to roll three sixes as you are of rolling any other number (so long as the dice aren't loaded).
#48 to #45 - moorbs ONLINE
Reply +11
(03/11/2013) [-]
#103 to #48 - Zyklone
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#49 to #45 - twotwelve ONLINE
Reply +14
(03/11/2013) [-]
The way you worded this explains exactly why you disagree
"I just don't get it"
#316 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply +10
(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.
#332 to #316 - Keoul
Reply +4
(03/11/2013) [-]
Eye don't believe you.
hue
#333 to #332 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply +6
(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
#335 to #333 - Keoul
Reply +2
(03/11/2013) [-]
You win this round!
#352 to #335 - crownofroses
Reply +1
(03/11/2013) [-]
I love you because you made Emi-eyed Hanako
#496 to #352 - Keoul
Reply +1
(03/12/2013) [-]
Daww thanks man!
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
#551 to #496 - crownofroses
Reply 0
(03/12/2013) [-]
Emi-eyed Hisao? ^___^
#361 to #333 - beamersmack **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Now bring us a source that isn't wiki.
#20 - Airmanator
Reply +10
(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.
#37 to #20 - fingapopyabuttho
-5
has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #37 - Airmanator
Reply +3
(03/11/2013) [-]
I'm a regular scumbag poster.

But really, if you want to know about evolution & related topics, go hunting on Google.
#39 to #38 - fingapopyabuttho
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#40 to #39 - Airmanator
Reply +4
(03/11/2013) [-]
Then remain ignorant, chum.
#41 to #40 - fingapopyabuttho
-9
has deleted their comment [-]
#42 to #41 - Airmanator
Reply +6
(03/11/2013) [-]
Might as well say you don't believe in gravity.
#53 to #42 - uberhans
Reply -1
(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
#52 to #42 - douthit
Reply -2
(03/11/2013) [-]
Not really, because you can see gravity working right in front of you.
#67 to #52 - blewws [OP]
Reply +1
(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.
#73 to #67 - douthit
Reply 0
(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.
#91 to #73 - blewws [OP]
Reply 0
(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!
#43 to #42 - fingapopyabuttho
-3
has deleted their comment [-]
#51 to #41 - douthit
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
I believe in microevolution, even though I know that's technically not the name for it.
#162 to #51 - coolcalx
Reply +1
(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.
#485 to #162 - douthit
Reply 0
(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.
#498 to #485 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(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.
#21 to #20 - aldheim
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#25 to #24 - aldheim
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
It didn't say I supported the other theories.
But they are there.
#22 to #20 - aldheim
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
Actually, a comment below mine brings up the point quite well...
#14
#26 to #22 - Airmanator
Reply 0
(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.
#46 to #20 - IAMDIZZYONFANTA
Reply 0
(03/11/2013) [-]
All things are debateable. It's still debated in Biology evolutionary circles.
#127 to #20 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#348 to #20 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(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.