I have to ask. How does his explanation jive with the fact that the halibut and other flatfish are born with an eye on each side of their head and as they mature the one eye migrates to the other side? I don't doubt that there is some adaptation involved, but an astute creationist could use this evidence as supporting their view. Why use this fish as an example of evolution?

a daft creationist (redundant?) perhaps but not an astute one. how does the fact that the fish hatches with normal bilateral symmetry in any way challenge evolution? the fish is born with an eye on either side of its head for the same reason you had pharyngeal arches at age 3 weeks.

Oh I didn't say it challenged evolution. I think evolution is on solid ground. It seems however that this example would be an easy target for the "daft creationist". The video did not explain the change in symmetry occurs after birth. However dumb it may seem, I am sure you can see what the counter argument would be. So again I ask what makes this a good example of evolution that would convince people who are otherwise inclined not to believe in evolution?

this was possibly the first time dawkins publicly challenged the idea of a designer, albeit subtley.
so it's easy to understand that he'd be much better now at giving good examples to support evolution.

typical Dawkins, which is certainly not a good thing

I'm sure he's an expert on all things aquatic (maybe he went fishing one time with his Mum)

There is nothing that a creationist can pull from evolution, science, biology, physics or any of the sciences to support a creationist theory. Creationist 'theories' are demonstrations of a lack of understanding of various chunks of science.

When these chunks are explained to you in a way that you can understand, the creationist theory vanishes into thin air.

A lot of people think that Evolution is somehow Dawkin's theory, it of course was written in 1859 by Charles Darwin. Every single new scientific study and observation that we make matches exactly what is predicted by the theory.

But - evolution only tells you how life evolves once it gets going. It doesn't have anything to say about what got life on earth going in there first place. There are other theories for that, some based on crystal lattices, some based on grains of sand.

My particular favourite is the one based on a race of hybrid alien grays. The creationists f*cking love that one.

Creationist jar of peanut butter argument? One word for you, EGG.

EGG you morons.






EGG.

Darwin's Origin of Species
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Blind Watchmaker
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/blindwatchmaker.shtml

Basically what Blind Watchmaker does is take you by the hand through the whole theory, you come away completely understanding it, in a way that you could explain any part of it to anyone.

Regardless of what you believe, everyone should read Blind Watchmaker - this is what we should be teaching kids instead of filling them with fear and dangerous nonsense.

I have to ask. How does his explanation jive with the fact that the halibut and other flatfish are born with an eye on each side of their head and as they mature the one eye migrates to the other side?


I'm pretty sure they dont migrate their own eye as they mature in one lifetime. The migration happens by evolution, hundreds of generations that favour those genes that produces one eye a little "off" to the side, and eventually all the way around on the other side.ie: today all halibuts are born with the "twisted" skull.

And I second Irishmans every word in the above post; Read the Blind Watchmaker.

How old is this video? Dawkins looks a lot younger.

Its from 1991, so 16 years then.. its from his Growing Up in The universe Christmas lectures Which is available on DVD, I highly recommend a purchase, and get them to send a copy to your local school as well!

@BicycleRepairMan

You see that is why I have a problem with this video. Dawkins makes it look and sound like what you describe. When in reality the halibut and other flatfish hatch with bilateral symmetry not with "twisted skulls." It is well known that they morph or flatten as they mature. It doesn't mean evolution hasn't taken place, but the deceptive nature of the video leaves him open to criticism in my view.

@ BillOReilly

good point ~!

Ah, didnt know that twiddles... anyway, the ability to do that surely does not come by itself, so it has developed the "ability" via gradual evolution then..

I'm sure he's an expert on all things aquatic (maybe he went fishing one time with his Mum)

I dunno....

Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University[1]

He might know a thing or two...

The reason he chose this example is because it illustrates evolution does not have a master plan; whatever works is what works.

A bottom dwelling fish could be more suitably adapted to survive if its belly were flatter and its eyes were perched up top, but thats not what we have in the halibut; the strategy it slowly evolved to employ was to lay flat to the side, as its ancestors, like many bony fish, had longish dorsal to caudal bodies (vertically long, like a bluegill or perch). As the side-down swimming method continued being selection for to catch prey and hide from predators, selection of fish who could see better while laying to the side drove the one eye all crazily to the top of the head.

The more obvious design for a fish that lives and hides on the ocean floor would be that of a skate, which is sort of a flattened shark. Sharks are not as vertically wide as most fish, and typically have large side-mounted pectoral fins already, so its less of a stretch to see selection towards the skate body-type from a shark-like ancestor... in contrast to the halibut ancestor which have to change a helluvalot to look like a skate.

plop! theres my answer, twiddles. apologies that its not very succinct.

Hmm....I wonder whether this will work.

*science?

Adding video to channels (science) - requested by rembar.

Hey thanks for the answer bamdrew. I was trying to be devil's advocate. I like your first sentence; I think I'll steal it for future use.

It is frustrating to see a sound bites like in this video. Makes me think I'm watching some news channel.