Don’t be afraid and teachers and scientists page 3 of 3

Same in this 14 minute clip. Don’t think Richard Dawkins means to be a conman or charlatan, but he must know that we don’t know anything beyond the biology of an eye , but is prepared to bamboozle children with absolute nonsense. No evidence. That’s quite some confidence. Should have at least let the children know that he and we don’t really know anything about how the physical eye exists and absolutely don’t know anything about the sense of seeing. Madman on the loose. Not sure. But this is about the eyes. That doesn’t mean that toe nails are any less impressive. All we know about toe nails is that they are on the toes and a bit of biology about them.

Edit. Just watched recent 2025 you tube with Richard Dawkins talking about evolution. He is either completely deluded or utterly selfish and still doubling down to save face. https://youtu.be/JOul25KphBE?si=8GkDvAcCI4evTksz This link now points to something else. will check

It is totally unfair for any school teacher to carry on shoulders that they have to tell children that we know how eyes and toe nails exist and evolved and how other bits and pieces like lungs and eyebrows exist and also evolved.

Back in above video though. Computers were newish back then and using them to convince the children of goodness knows what was also in the least selfish. Hardly any of the children knew what that computer stuff was about. I don’t looking at it today. Near the end the children are told that they should when thinking about how eyes evolved “once again remember each step is a piece of random luck.” I’m sure that that could not be told to children today. Telling those children to “remember” what they had been told. And then to remember that “each step is a piece of random luck.”

Google search on evolution of the eye brings these videos up on first page. Noticeably a YouTube search on evolution of the eye brings up videos mostly from 9 to 15 years ago. My guess is few people including scientists would not be prepared to make one today even though we have mountains of more knowledge available about animals bodies including DNA etc.

Oh no. Found part one. It’s even worse.

Again no evidence like fossils or mention of the text books they must have read showing the evidence. All the text books would show is biology of an eye. There is no text book or scientific paper with evidence to show show evolution of the eye and especially sight or seeing. There is certainly no science in those cardboard makeups. And especially no evidence of what sight or seeing is. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You cannot leave that out when when telling children . That is a wrong. Plain and simple.

It might of helped if they had also built a brain made of cardboard and showed it’s connections to the eyes and showing both brain and eyes evolving at the same time with each other and how the arm and hand can use that sight to catch a ball.
I should cut out the sarkiness later but it is what it is for now. Just first thoughts.

But eyes existed 500 million years ago. Trilobites had perfectly working ones. Quick google says they were superb and had great depth perception. Not sure how it is known so must add a disclaimer for this and everything else here written. Just thoughts.
Then 66 million years ago an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out 75 percent of all living things. Complete species were made extinct including the trilobites and dinosaurs. Eyes though were soon again on the scene. Not saying that they completely disappeared, don’t know, but they were once again widespread on new animals ( i think, Dont trust me though , but that’s how it looks in my google reading)

But surely eyes are a specific thing to be able to see and don’t rely on random mutations and natural selection to make themselves. And it’s hard to think that somehow there were simple eyes that later add a lens in any sort of development to bring about an improvement. There is a problem with what we can say about eyes because all we can see in the fossils is an eye socket , and the jelly like structure of the actual eye is gone.

Oh no. It gets even more worse. (video below) Nobody knows what seeing is and nobody has any evidence that the physical eye or sight evolved. There is absolutely no evidence at all. You can’t cup your hands to show how an eye evolved.. Bizarre. How can anyone in their head be so sure. That’s what happens when you double down. This is 20 plus years later after the above videos. Still no evidence. Pure conjecture.

Richard Dawkins on the eye. Please tell us that at least it was just excitement about being in the limelight and that it was all nonsense. You have been so influential and still can be. Could in the least say that even if you can imagine how an eye evolved you struggle a bit to understand how evolution has led to two of them sitting on the face with a nose in-between and a mouth below on all sorts of different animals. Then maybe at least also say that we don’t also really know how those features evolved at the same time as the ten fingers at the end of our arms. Are you a charlatan. It’s the evidence. Never any.

A new book on how you were taken in by the random mutations and natural selections idea or how you got into a niche and enjoyed it would sell like nothing you’d ever written before. Then follow it with your own philosophy thoughts about phenomena’s and all the bits and pieces on the face and the rest of the body and how they are all held in place might be better than anything anybody has ever come up with. Your change in train of thought could at once utilize all the concentration that was put into that past thinking and could be much more investigative . And hopefully would be honest. Sorry , there I go again. Just don’t know if you are a charlatan or not. If you are genuinely convinced by whatever evidence you have read about just say on the eye having evolved , then apologies. That would mean you are not a charlatan.
Problem with charlatans though is that they have lots to say. But it’s what they don’t say that gives them away. To express no doubt that eyes evolved points to dishonesty.

To me , on my simple Google searches , there is no real evidence that eyes and noses and teeth or speech and thought evolved. Even if they did , there is absolutely no evidence of it. Just plausible this and plausible that. All conjectural.

Carrying on with critique though. No evidence. No fossils. Nothing. Just “Any old lump of gubbins” will do to make an eye lens. 12 min video

Telling children or anyone else that all animals and plants blindly evolved through random mutations and natural selection is very wrong to do without showing evidence. Showing the evidence should be paramount. Not just the whole animal or plant on it’s own , but eyes and blood and noses and belly buttons and the fancying thing.
All of us will fleetingly have a think about life and universe etc and just think gosh and don’t know what it’s all about. But if what you are told in those videos above is fact as a child and us it can stick , in brain or mind or whatever it is.

The word bamboozling people comes to mind. Because what is left out is that sight or seeing is a whole thing. You can’t have half or quarter sight or half or quarter seeing. You can have eyes or light sensors that allow say a worm to see light and dark only. A worm sees light and knows that It is dark or it is light. A worm doesn’t half see or a quarter see or have half sight or quarter sight.
No one knows anything about anything and so it is wrong of conjecturers to not point out that they don’t know anything and that they are just conjecturing and know that their conjectured ideas are just conjectures.
In simple thinking , there is no evidence that eyes and sight evolved.
And ears and sound and noses exist at the same time as sight. It can’t be got around with our evolution ideas. Quite simply , we don’t know how those parts that are on a face exist.

Next chapter. Echolocation and pakicetus.

Home