To be honest that is the way it has been explained, I've never been taught it in depth.

Do you treat a puddle like an entire ocean because they are both water? One is smaller and less complex than the other.

Complexity is not a starting point in evolution. There are far more successful species that are much older that do not have eyesight, plants and worms survive fine without eyesight. Bacteria are far more successful at survival than humans and also do not have eyesight.

But here is the scientific history of the evolution of eyesight. AGAIN stemming from DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The ocean and a puddle are as equally complexed as each other.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:16 am)C4RM5 Wrote: To be honest that is the way it has been explained, I've never been taught it in depth.

That is our point. You don't learn it so you gap fill because it is hard for most to understand. 

Now to be fair, I am no expert either, but I do know what atoms look like, I do know what the 4 nucleotides are that make up DNA, and the overall simple concept of small changes over long periods of time.

It is why all dogs are related, why cats and lions and tigers are related and humans and other primates are related, and why trees and grass are called plants.

DNA, that is what all life has in common.

---

(April 2, 2015 at 8:25 am)C4RM5 Wrote: The ocean and a puddle are as equally complexed as each other.

Um no, that is like saying our solar system is as complex as the entire galaxy.

The ocean is far more complex than a mere puddle.

No an ocean and a puddle are made up of the same H2O molecules, there is nothing more or less complexed about the ocean and a puddle.

Um no, oceans contain salt, they contain coral, they contain currents, they contain sea life. You are stupidly equating a snowflake to an entire depth of snowfall from a snowstorm.

Please if you admit you did not learn about evolution, don't shit on something you have no knowledge of.

I'm not pretending to know anything about evolution, I wasn't the one who brought it up. It is the reason I don't join in debates on the topic.

We were both thinking of different things, you were saying an ocean was complexed due to what was in it and the way nature interacts with it. I was saying it was the same as a puddle to to its similar water structure.

Also I didn't say anything about snow.

I also didn't admit I knew nothing about evolution, I admitted I hadn't learnt alot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8

DNA REPLICATION 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8

https://www.google.com/search?q=DNA+nucl...UoAQ&dpr=1

---

ALL LIFE is made up of the same 4 nucleotides

Adenine
Thymine
Cytosine
Guanine

---

Evolution is NOT up for debate. It is fact like the earth revolving around the sun. I am sorry if your lack of understanding of science bothers you. That is your baggage.

I have an understanding of DNA already, can you explain where the code stored in DNA comes from?

I don't have a lack of understanding of science, I just didn't pick Biology as a GCSE.

(April 2, 2015 at 8:03 am)C4RM5 Wrote: If evolution is so perfect explain how ancient animals would have survived if they only had part of an eye. You need a whole eye to see.

Basically speaking, some cells in very early life forms had a crude ability to detect a change in light intensity. This trait proved useful in avoiding predators and so was passed through DNA, the life forms without these cells died out as they were easier prey.

Each subsequent mutation that led to a more refined ability to detect changes in light patterns (i.e. predators approaching) would be beneficial to the survival of that organism and it would be more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation on.

Repeat for millions of generations and you start to form something you recognise as an eye. The evidence of this is well documented, it's probably the timescale that makes it difficult for you to comprehend.