Questions that make Darwin cucks go crazy

>Why did that first ancestor 300 million years ago get exactly two eyes?
>Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds evolved after fish. The first amphibians evolved from a lobe-finned fish ancestor about 365 million years ago.
However vertebrate fish with only two eyes already existed 500 million years ago

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haikouichthys

basically this.

2 pretty good eyes and a powerful brain
or many pretty good eyes, and an over taxed brain, or large brain with tremendous energy requirements, or slower brain, or lower quality vision.

That does not provide an answer to "why?".

To make it more specific: if two eyes facing either forward or sideways was an advantage, why wasnt more eyes facing more directions more of an advantage?

Because we are mammals, not fucking insects.

Misleading fact. We only use 10% of our brains BY VOLUME. We use 100% of the nerve tissue that is suspended in the grey matter (fat and cholesterol).

Attached: A-336579-1122632491.jpg.jpg (283x300, 12K)

>That does not provide an answer to "why?".
Because the most succesfull early vertebrates were fishes with bilateral simmetry, that had one eye replicated on each side, as well as, more importantly, symmetric fins. Some vertebrates evolved a third eye, but they all died off and so the trait wasn't retained

>Can’t distinguish an anus from a vagina
>Do anal
>No heirs

We are predators, not a victim.

The body is symmetrical on the back too.

Oh btw, to answer why we don't have 20 eyes is simply. Eyes are both energetically expensive to form, especially considering all the nerve tissue and brain power required.
The nervous system and eyes of invertebrates are much more symple however and less energy intensive, which is why they can easily have a lot more eyes (also their ancestors had more than 2 eyes, which helps)

The simmetry was lateral. Very early "fish" were a clusterfuck of fins, but lateral symmetry organized fins in a much more efficient way

This argument is attractive on its face but quickly falls apart. There is nothing that mandates that all eyes must provide the same quality of perception or even the same sense. Think a big.LITTLE. Think two forward facing binocular eyes providing exact vision and two backward facing eyes providing a second sense identifying movement.

by the time we stopped simply mindlessly moving forward and started needing to look put for predator our eyes were complex enough that simply forming more of them wasn't genetically feasible, learning to move out heads was the simpler and effective enough solution

not that evolution didn't try, though, we can still find a primordial "third eye" in the less evolved vertebrates up to reptiles, developed enough to discern the presence of something blocking light (a predator from above)
and many insects have numerous sets of simpler eyes than ours

What counts as efficient for eyes and fins is probably governed by completely different factors.

That's how lateral symmetry works and all vertebrates display and have displayed lateral symmetry for more than half a billion years, like it or not

>Why do we only have two eyes - instead of many eyes facing all directions?
Have you asked (((your god))) the same question? What was the answer?

We have only two eyes because there's not a need for more than two.
Having only two eyes doesn't stop reproduction so there was never a need to evolve more.

If we were only mindlessly moving forward at that point, why two, why not one? If it had settled on two, that would seem to imply either predation (and binocular vision) or trying to cover a fair field of vision (avoiding predators)

your mom is an energy sink

Lateral symmetry does a poor job at explaining two (rather than 4,8,16..) eyes, and an equally poor job of explaining why they're facing forward. We have ten fingers and ten toes and only one liver...

Hypergamy
80% of women go after the top 20% of eyes

lol

It is not for me to question the wisdom of an all powerful being. Science however is a creation of men wishing to replace God with themselves by purporting to have all the answers.

I already explained you why. Lateral symmetry explains why eyes are placed in pairs, whether forward facing (binocular vision = depth perception. Useful for predators or high intelligent species capable of tool making, us) or side facing (wider field of view = able to survey more of your surroundings at the same time. Useful for animals which are usually predated, since it gives them a better chance of spotting a predator.

As for why 2 and not 4,8,16,etc. see

I've already showed why that "explanation" is spurious and not satisfactory. (I understand that your belief in the false god Darwin forces you to cling to it rather than at long last questioning all you've been taught to believe.)

How the fuck is this politics and not random

>I've already showed why that "explanation" is spurious and not satisfactory.
I must have missed that. Where did you point it out?
>I understand that your belief in the false god Darwin
I am Christian though, and so was Darwin

>t. coping Darwincuck

here

>Why do we only have two eyes - instead of many eyes facing all directions?
Resources are limited.

Isn't that the question for you to answer?
Why would god design us with two eyes instead of 4? And if we are made "in the image of god" and god is the perfect being, why does the perfect being have such a limited range of vision?

We have two eyes because animals only have two eyes, and each animal has adapted that template to suit their purpose.

Attached: dab on them.webm (854x480, 571K)

You are supposed to activate your third eye, but humans have been sleeping for thousands of years and it has atrophied.

Have you even read what I posted? Sure, more eyes would theoretically be an advantage, the point is that eyes are extremely complex in vertebrates. They involve muscles, special tissue and cells, specialized bone is some cases (scleral ring). Not to mention the even bigger hurdle of the neurological aspect of eyes, both in terms of nerve tissue and brain adaptation. It's a diminishing return on investment which has happened in evolution (3 eyed vertebrates existed) but which wasn't advantageous enough compared to other traits, so it died out

Because it provides no evolutionary benefit to an apex predator like humans.

>Science however is a creation of men wishing to replace God with themselves by purporting to have all the answers.
imagine being this scientifically illiterate

You really need to read Book of Job user, like right fucking now.

Kundalini says every pore is an eye, so technically we have millions of eyes

check out the eyes on this squid

Attached: Cockeyed squid.webm (1280x720, 1.04M)

Because humans are hunters. Most hunting animals have forward facing eyes for tracking, while prey animals have side facing eyes to scan around them for danger

They are extremely complex now, but if we are to believe that Michael Behe is wrong then they were not extremely complex then, and then is really what matters here. Besides, eyes are apparently useful enough to have evolved independently several times. It stands to reason that organisms with forward and backward facing eyes have evolved at some point. It stands to reason that simple and cheap backwards facing eyes have evolved at some point. The conclusion we must come to, as good little Darwin worshipping sheeple, is that even though they were cheap, and even though they ought to have offered an advantage, even so, were they selected against, for some reason.

Now, what is this reason, is what I'd like an answer to, and I think I'm entitled to one.

because no one suggested it to the suggestion box

Our sensory budge is already strained as it is.
Adding more eyes of the same quality would require larger brains due to increased amount of information intake.
Considering how much resources our visual sense takes, adding one extra eye and propotionally decresing the quality of vision would leave us with a vision barely equal to a fly.

Humans have a pretty limited "awareness budget" as it is.

if you don't have extra eyes, how will you ever be safe?

Attached: 1559588380535.gif (320x180, 1006K)

because stereoscopic vision allows for depth perception which is essential for hunters ambushing prey

Not true. Humans are monkeys designed to sit in trees eating bananas, or so Darwin preached in his most offensive, yet widely admired, sermon.

>or lower quality vision
basically spiders

Stfu.

because more is more complex than less.
the first organisms had no eyes, then their descendents slowly developed crude light sensors these evolved into motion detectors which over time developed into monocular structures.
then binocular structures where a natural leap due to the previously mentioned benefits of depth perception

>Why do we only have two eyes - instead of many eyes facing all directions?
because we don't need more, 2 is enough to grant us perception of depth
inb4 but spiders and bugs have more eyes, yes but their eyes work differently than ours and are way shittier

Because an an inheritable mutation for eyes on the back of our heads hasn't shown up while we're in an environment that would strongly select for the additional eyes

Because 2 eyes was enough, Darwinistic evolution is a blind process that only changed when it is necessary. Our mammal ancesters only had 2 eyes and they only needed 2 to survive and reproduce.

because of the random nature of mutations only small mutations produce even viable offspring, and of those mutations the vast majority cause no noticeable change in survivability.
spontaneously developing fully developed eyes in the back of the head is a large leap which is highly unlikely to occur naturally and if it did would create an organism so different from it's peers it would likely have trouble finding a mate.
i'm not saying it isn't a viable survival strategy, but evolution does not optimize for maximum potential.
evolution selects for the lowest common denominator of survivability.
if an adaptation does not explicitly hamper reproduction it will continue to be inherited

I always wondered why if an Elephants trunk such a handy design, why didn't all 4 legge animals develop a trunk

You should read "Born to Run"

He makes a great argument that humans evolved their upright posture to chase prey.
Evidence for this:
>humans have the BEST heat dissipation system in nature
>humans have perhaps the BEST endurance of any large land mammal
>humans are the FASTEST endurance runners on the planet

A human will lose to a horse every time in a sprint, but will win every time in a 50 mile race. Because human's sweat glands allow us to dissipate heat very efficiently, as opposed to all the other land mammals. That's why we have these hairless bodies. It was this innovation probably more than anything else that secured human dominance among the other animals.

So for example a dog can sprint for a while, but then it overheats. It MUST stop and rest. But a human can keep going, and going, and going. Human's high endurance also means that we can work 14 hour days if we want, while other animals must spend a huge part of their day "switched off". Humans are not the strongest, but have the highest endurance. Absolutely relentless.

The way it would work, is chasing an animal until they overheat and are forced to stop, at which point the animal can be easily killed

Attached: Born to Run.jpg (1556x2400, 445K)

Ten fingers and ten toes is more complex than four hoves. The ability to move each finger independently and with precision even moreso. And yet we have them and we do. Because it offers us competitive advantages.

Let me add on to say this is why mammals dont have 6 limbs - the energy each of our limbs takes means it's a diminishing return for the investment for each additional limb. 4 seems the perfect sweet spot

Many apes hunt, he did not say we are herbivorous monkeys
Why are you trying to argue against a position that you dont actually know even the basics of?

exactly, but the ten developed from less over time because the evolutionary strategy of primates relies around environmental manipulation in our case this lead to the extreme conclusion of tool usage.
there are organisms with multiple eyes, but they followed different evolutionary paths.
again, i'm not saying it isn't a viable evolutionary strategy, just that it didn't develop.
again, evolution does not optimize

And yet eyes have evolved independently, many times, on independent evolutionary paths. But never facing backwards (Or rather, the backwards facing ones didnt survive)

>i'm a retard! look at me go!

streamable.com/f294d

Attached: 2525251.jpg (1280x707, 418K)

You're still failing to grasp what is really so surprising about what we ended up with. At the point when eyes evolved, they were very rudimentary. Here's how one prominent spreader of Satans lies (PBS evolution library) puts it:

>Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

It stands to reason that there have been evolutionary paths where these "light sensitive spot[s]" have been more numerous and facing other directions. But if we are to believe the lies, they must have been selected against. But no one has yet offered a persuasive reason why that should be. Because none of all those hundreds of thousands of NPC disciples of that false profet Darwin have an explanation. They think they have it all figured out, but in reality they know nothing.

any animal with an evolutionary need to see in front of it and behind it at the same time evolved eyes on the side of it's head to do so.
this is because having one set of eyes with 360 vision is simpler and less energy intensive than 2 sets of stereoscopic eyes

Already adressed.

It's been absolutely lovely, my brainlets. Now it's time for my tendies and beddy-beddies. If this thread is alive tomorrow I will generously provide you with the answer to this question to which your intellects have been found so very wanting.

STEREOSCOPIC VISION

Simple. They do the job. Pressure of selection applies on inadequate features. 2 eyes are efficient, therefore we have 2 of them.
If there were enough factors starting to require more eyes, then the very rare mutants having them would be favorized and would die less and reproduce more. Until they are the majority.

Why the fuck is Jow Forums so god damn easy to bait with a VPN and a lack of knowledge?

No dumbass...we use 100% of our brain, just not all at the same time because that would be like trying to do a sudoku, on an airplane, during a quiet riot concert, while someone is flashing your eyes with a strobe.

This, there is still a tribe some where how hunts like this, cant member name tho

We use ~10% consciously faggit. We still use the remaining 90%.

come on llama bro... thats a shit factoid.

No, then a heightened sense of smell would be more energy efficient.

Two eyes can easily view nearly everything around them; eyes when’s they first started showing up could do that.
Two eyes is all that is needed for depth perception.
If you cannot see in every direction your hearing will compensate.
Humans don’t have near 360 vision because we’re hunters.

And spiders are relatively small and evolved to move as little as possible. Minimizing change in gibbs free energy is woven into every evolutionary decision.

>Why do we only have two eyes - instead of many eyes facing all directions?
Because our genetic ancestor's offspring died off and reproduced in a manner that led to it.
Evolution isn't a structured, well laid plan that resulted in our current forms, it's a best fit approach of "if it survived and reproduced, that's good enough", with small genetic variations for each generation.

Its called persistence hunting. Easiest way to hunt, if you have a few days. On a side note to counteract the awesomeness of humans...We are also the only creatures on the planet that cannot breath and swallow at the same time.

The only good answer is “because that’s what survived”. That’s how evolution works.
There is no “reason”.

if more eyes were better, a creature would eventually evolve more then two eyes and then outcompete 2-eyed creatures. this didn't happen, so 2 eyes is superior.

>Questions that make Darwin cucks go crazy

How flagellum evolved.

Holy fuck my sides

Attached: 1561829534469.jpg (472x437, 32K)

Predators need to have good vision and have both eyes in front of the skull. The prey need to have 360 vision to detect predators from all sides and thats why their eyes are on the sides of the skull.
>mfw nips are supposed to be smart

Attached: 61aIxB3g0rL._SY606_.jpg (416x606, 20K)

Depth perception makes you more efficient at catching your prey.

The one eyed fish would keep biting empty water and starve to death.

many insects have such eyes and their brains arent large

I wish human evolution kept a fully functional monkey tail. If dragon ball taught me anything that shit would be useful as fuck especially if it's strong enough to support hanging your body weight.

bilateral symmetry

The back quarter or so of our brain is dedicated to the eyes; we'd need a lot more brainpower (and food for energy as a result) to keep that many eyes in check.

This retard only uses 5%

Sorry I didn't realise pinheads were dense as fuck

>brain weighs 3lb on average
>Vision takes up about 30% of Total neurons
>Or almost a pound including supporting grey matter
>Yeah bruv just toss on 8 more eyes you'd only more than double the required brain mass and energy consumption lol y Darwin so dum tho

Attached: comp-4010-lecture3-human-perception-7-638.jpg (638x451, 56K)