Wouldnt the proto-eye and the reaction to the proto-eye stimulus have to evolve at the exact same time somehow (how could one be selected for without the other)? In fact it would seem many things would have to evolve at the same time in evolution. The more I study recent developments in evolution the more I see what seems to be active intelligent guidance and design and the more Im concerned a great many have inexplicable blinders on and students arent being encouraged to think for themselves and question naturalism dogma. And the sea anemone, yeah, read the article (Ill put it in the comments), looks like design to me (complex and sophisticated gene regulatory networks very similar to advanced land animals, so at least the principle had to exist 600 million years ago at the time of the common ancestor, which is just shortly after everything was little more than multicellular mass conglomerations, while other aspects match plant life i.e. important levels of gene regulation just happening to evolve independently (according to the conclusion of the article, I suppose they are talking about the evolution from the original principle was similar yet independent, with the plant part being directly descendant), how many times do things have to evolve independently again, I read that the evolution of flight had to evolve independently no less than four times for insects, dinosaurs, birds and bats.) Article regarding eye evolution: sciencedaily/releases/2014/06/140611102159.htm
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:54:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015