Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 71786

The human eye occupies about 1 - 4000th the area of the human body. What is the likely hood of the eye evolving on the body? Answer 4000 to 1.

What are the odds of two eyes *simultaneously* evolving on the human body? Answer, since there would be 2 the odds would be 16,000,000 to 1!



letusreason, BBC Meessageboard Religion and Ethics 125 Comments [3/30/2010 3:55:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 131
Submitted By: Hugh Meechan
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4 5
Skeptical Moonbat

Well at least he didn't use the "Darwin Eye" quote mine.

3/30/2010 7:44:46 PM

MPW

{blink blink}

3/30/2010 9:16:49 PM

Ambrielle

Logic FAIL, biology FAIL... total
FAIL in fact.

3/30/2010 10:09:35 PM

Swede

As we apparently did evolve with two eyes, the odds is 1, as far as I understand it.
You would probably not even get your money back on a bet like that. They would confiscate your money as a stupidity tax.

3/30/2010 10:23:14 PM

shockmeshockmeshockmewiththatdeviantbehavior

OH MY FUCK- WATTT???? JUST.... WAAAAAAT????? O.O *CRIES* YOUR STUPID IS BASHING MY SKULL IN PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!! THE PAAAAAIN!!!

3/30/2010 10:50:16 PM

Haseen

According to his own logic, his brain has a 1/1,000,000,000 chance of evolving.

3/30/2010 11:02:41 PM

Sylvana

If I understand this guy correctly he is saying we should all be blind. (Not to mention where do blind people or those with birth defects removing the eyes stand?)

The chance of an organic life form evolving a light sensitive cell is exsteme. Hence the large number of organic life that lacks light sensitive cells.

However given the large number of organic life forms the critera for those odds would eventually be met. After that, in acordance with genetics the odds of that lifeforms offspring having light sensitive cells is quite high.

Then given the popensitiy for genetic mutation to duplicate complete gene sequences the liklihood of that light sensitive cell doubleing is additionally quite high in all future generations of that origional life form.

This look at simplistic odds does not even take into consideration the survival advantages of light sensitive eyes and the further adaptation of those cells into the human eye.

3/30/2010 11:14:11 PM

casewithscience

So much fail in such little space.

This is a classic.

3/31/2010 12:51:30 AM

macahi

Wow. Math doesn't work that way.
Biology doesn't work that way.
The human brain doesn't work that way.

- This is your brain, on religion...

3/31/2010 1:20:25 AM

BennyBoy

Statistics fail.
Logic fail.
Probability fail.
Biology fail.

=

Epic fail fails epically.


3/31/2010 2:30:35 AM

Dexter

Biology, statistics & logic fail... Nice, it's getting dumber

3/31/2010 6:47:15 AM



What is the likelihood of you ever understanding mathematics, biology, or the English language?


3/31/2010 7:56:38 AM

Anon-e-moose

@Almafeta

"@Anon-e-moose: Wouldn't that mean that eyes are independently evolved several times per day?"

Just that what lettucereason failed to realise that, as fish evolved with two eyes, so did the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, the mammals - including the apes, and the common ancestor from which the hominids ultimately leading to Homo Sapiens.

The common factor being they all have two eyes. Thus the probability being 1:1. That common factor in those being a link in that chain of evolution (as opposed to insects, arachnids et al) proves we evolved from basic life that started in the seas. And even before then, the single-celled life that became multi-celled. And previously - the Primordial Soup.

Ergo, lettucereason proving Evolution and destroying his own insane 'Creationist' argument. QED.

And frankly, if Judge John E. Jones III wasn't swayed by the far more credible evidence of the likes of Michael Behe et al in Kitzmiller vs. Dover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

Then lettucereason's 'logic' doesn't have an icecube in a fusion reactor's chance of convincing anyone.

3/31/2010 8:13:03 AM

JonnyTruant

Fortunately between evolution and bilateral symmetry, the probability approaches 1. Actually, it would be much less likely for a random eye to be found (solo without a matching part) somewhere else on the body. That would just be creepy.

3/31/2010 8:34:41 AM

dog on

Mathematics fail, logic fail, evolutionary biology fail. Maybe "letusreason" should change his username to lettucereason, since that is the reasoning level he equates to.

3/31/2010 11:03:44 AM

K

Litsten, evolution real simple. Those who were born with two eyes had more babies because two eyes allowed them to survive better. All their babies that had two eyes had more babies then those that did not. Eventually one eyed die out, two eyes dominate. Evolution, it only takes one mutation.

3/31/2010 11:06:50 AM

Brianisha

Evolution does not work that way! Fail!

3/31/2010 2:12:03 PM

Phisshy

You guys say evolution is playing dice with the development of organisms.

Well if that is the case the process of evolution plays with heavily loaded dice. How it is loaded depends on the organism's environment.

3/31/2010 2:18:20 PM

Skwisgaar

The Human hair takes up 1:10,000,000 of the human body

The odds of evolving 100,000 of the buggers, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000.

It makes perfect sense, I believe!!

3/31/2010 4:54:32 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Lettuce reason is a better handle.

3/31/2010 4:55:33 PM



/weeps

3/31/2010 9:03:40 PM



The bigger the better. Sorry, in science things don't work necessarily that way.

4/1/2010 9:20:55 AM

The L

The probability of an organ evolving has nothing to do with the relative volume (not area, which is two-dimensional) of that organ to the volume of the body.

Also, two eyes clearly would not have developed totally independently of each other. It is much more likely, from a purely statistical point of view, that life forms started with one simple eye (or eyespot) and mutated to have two or more (like insects, which have hundreds of eyes arranged into a "compound eye").

Pretending that the development of the left eye is totally independent of the development of the right eye is just as nonsensical as it would be to say, "We'd have been just as likely to evolve eyes in our stomachs as we were to evolve them on the outside, where they can actually see things around us and be useful to us."

4/2/2010 8:16:20 AM

Felius

I feel dumber just by having read this quote.

4/2/2010 11:07:56 AM

Seen the Light

Wow! I never thought of that before! I now realize the truth of Creation and that evolution is from Satan! Thank you for this logical proof, you must have been inspired by the Lord Jesus himself!

4/20/2010 6:39:05 PM
1 2 3 4 5