Re: Predicting eyes
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:31:46 -0500 (EST)
At 03:01 PM 11/18/97 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>Bilateral symmetry is predictable from evolution-it makes sense for a
>mobile organism to specialize so as to have a front and a back end. Sense
>organs are most useful up front, to see/smell/taste/feel/hear/etc. where
>you are going, so having eyes symmetrically distributed on the front end
>makes sense. Two eyes rather than one medial eye allows better vision to
>each side, and if the eye is good enough, can allow binocular vision.
>Since we're usually going forwards, extra eyes in back have not been a
>particular advantage, and the pineal "eye" is reduced or lost in many
>vertebrate lineages. Additionally, there's the "other mammals have two
>eyes so we are likely to maintain this pattern" line of reasoning, which is
>less a priori. Directionality is probably important in the presence of
>more than one eye-we also have two ears, but one nose and one mouth-light
>and sound have more direction to them than smell or taste.
It is strange how you use reason to indicate the why of sensory organs yet
we are to believe that mere mutations, natural selection and chance brought
such organs into being. It all smells like a Designer with a purpose to me.