good or bad for what circunstances and for what unit of evolution in what amount of time? . If I say "sexual reproduction is bad, because, mitosis is a delicate process that may fail and produce many problems. cloning is better because it is simpler. therefore natural selection do it wrong"
obviously that is the simplistic reasoning of an ignorant. The correct scientific attitude is to keep studying why sexual reproduction is worth for natural selection. And this is also an open question. In the same way a design , like natural selection or the eye is something for which particular circunstances can not reverse it. For example if an specie live in an ambient with a lot of radiation, it may be true that cloning would be the best way to reproduce for a million year (until the species get extinct due to other effects) but this does not mean that sexual reproduction is wrong in any way. It should be better to develop some secundary defenses against mutations, and when the species ambient change, It can continue enjoying the advantages of sexual reproduction. In the same way, that when some specie becomes nocturnal for some million years, maybe the eye of the octopus would have been nicer in that circunstances . So what? if this is good for most of their genera and for most of the existence of that clade? Moreover, the vertebrate eye is able to move better (think it the eye of the chameleon) and thus to focus and point better with less sensitive cells. By the way I have to go to work. Look I don´t develop wings!. How much better would have been t fly to my work. Thar proves that natural selection do it wrong. 2015-03-19 4:51 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>: > On 3/18/2015 5:08 PM, LizR wrote: > >> Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and >> now the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science! >> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of- >> our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled >> > > I don't think you need to rush to change your examples just yet. This > sounds more like development of the glial cells to compensate for the > initial bad design that put the receptors on the back side of the retina. > The authors say it helps color vision during the day without hurting night > (non-color) vision too much. But many vertebrates don't even have color > vision. Are their eyes wired the other way around...No. Do they have the > same glial cell disposition? And if the color receptors were in on the > front side of the retina then they wouldn't need sequences of glial cells > to guide the photons to them. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
