The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

As Dad and I had sat and chatted awhile as we drank our tea, we had debated as to why man has two eyes and was it an illustration that there was a grand design, whether it be divine, or accidental.

The question must be asked though, why do we, like the majority of animals, have two eyes a nose and mouth, in roughly the same place on each species?

And yes, it ould also be viewed as part of a greater philosophical debate, much like the old chicken and egg. You know the one: “Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?’

Or… ‘Who came first, man or woman?’

All of these are interesting questions. Yet currently I find the one relating to the why do we have two eyes most interesting… as the answers pose yet more questions.

I wonder, what do others think about the theory of a 'grand design', that made us who we are?

Just for the record... I do not believe in intelligent design or any other name it may come in.

That being said, we have two eyes thanks to evolution. Ours are in the place they are so we can have depth perception.

As far as mouth, nose, etc... I guess thats just where the chips fell, so to speak.

Well, How can I answer your question without talking about the third eye, the one that you can't see. The third eye (also known as the inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept referring in part to the ajna (brow) chakra in certain spiritual traditions. We have body parts and every parts have their own function within the human body. All are connected to each other. We have two eye, because that is the way that we came from the time of the evolution. But, what about the deformity of some human, who are born without a face due to Treacher Collins Syndrome? What happen, mutation of genes or revenge of evolution?

But the third eye is a chakra and thus not physical but spiritual.. The two eyes just as two hands, legs and feet provide us with a sense of balance.

I always wanted an extra eye. Or stalk eyes. For looking around corners safely. And a trunk, and a tail, but that's different story ...

But I guess two eyes are better than one, or none at all.

**shakes head**

evolution?
creationism?

neither explain the remarks I made.
and I follow Darwin... just doesn't follow the way we have had these features, as do most animals, for several million years... hence the thread.

We are bilaterally symmetrical animals so our lateral organs come in pairs. Having two eyes make it possible to have complete knowledge of the solidity and depth of an object.

*thankful that eyes didn't end up on our asses!*

LOL yeah well, Dabbler, me too!

If neither evolution nor creationism explain why we have two eyes to see with, then what kind of answer should be given? It might as well be a silly one.

I do believe in intelligent design and I also believe that the creator put them there because that is where they are intended to be.

There's no evidence for so called "intelligent design." It's a thinly veiled disguise in my opinion. There's no evidence to that effect. The evolutionary scale is very detailed, clear and quite provable.

It is logical for the eyes to be located as close to the processor as possible.

Perhaps it's merely a matter of having a spare?

I'm with Dabs on that. Sight is probably the most developed sense in humans, and because we stand upright, it's only logical that our most developed sense is to be located somewhere near the top of our bodies, close to the organ that processes the data from it.

I just don't see what this topic has to do with the Dark Network though LOL

~We have frontal features vecause we don't have to see whats behind us, as a little rabbit does~unfortunately, humans are hunters, as are Wolves, Large Cats, Woverines, etc~

'The evolutionary scale is very detailed, clear and quite provable?'

von daniken would love you.

doesn't explain the evolutionary jumps now, does it?

as an aside, the thread began with a thought...

why are our features where they are.. and yes, I grant you.. we were hunters... but, like most other animals, they were as they were from almost the start.. hence the question...

There may be gaps and I never said the Darwin theory was perfect. However there's certainly more proof to it than the notion the world was created in 7 days.

I agree with Mel on this one.

Even if you look past fossil records, geographic distribution, and a number of other things, we have this fun little thing called DNA.

aye, a genetic chain that has gaps in it. I know.

the tree of man is a fine example.

When I used to debate evangelical christians on this issue, they'd deny the important aspects of DNA and there are species that carry DNA closely related to humans?

Most vertebrates have two eyes enabling them to have a better field of vision , each species with its own evolutionary adjustment according to habitat and feeding. Predators having binocular vision and the depth perception enables them to stalk and judge distance when hunting prey, or tree dwellers use this to judge distance when traveling from branch to branch..... on the flip side the prey animals have their eyes on the side of the head for maximum field of vision to see that danger from all angles.

Eyes on both sides for whatever reason is logical. Same with the ears , more can be heard with two ears than with one. 1 nose....1 mouth...really how would any more be useful unless you had two heads.

As the earth changes, changing habitat will result in nature adjusting to fit the needs , those that cannot adjust die...the rest evolve. In the end superior genetics and the ability to keep up on an evolutionary scale will keep life going. Makes me wonder what will be the next dominate species on this planet after we are gone.

... a wonderful encapsulation of idea's and, I thank you for the post: all of which rang true.

.. the next form, the cockroache I'd guess. tho to be succinct, it won't damage this planet as much as we have... will it?

They simply scavenge what we leave behind

Mel, if you wish to talk about the linking of sepcies via DNA let me know or message me. I will discuss with you to the best of my knowledge about that.


Angelus, DNA doesnt have "gaps". We have a neat little thing called the Human Genome project which lists out the 3000 genes in the human body.

yes.. I know of the project. I'm also well aware of the gaps I speak of.. those where species make those evolutionary leaps. Like in Man? Standing upright.

"Sheesh..."

Yes there are certain gaps which could be leaps. However remember they ford "Eve" and her five sons in South Africa where we all come from.

Well Angelus, one could even debate that.

Standing upright isn't exclusively human, humans are however the only species (to my knowledge) that are mobile through standing up.

And yes I understand there are gaps between different species, but to me, thats easily explained through Darwinism.

am grinning. researched the fellow greatly over thirty years.. if you know something I don't.. I'll listen.

Well if there we no gaps in DNA than only one species would exist.

If you follow the common ancestor teachings of Darwin, you would see that at some point, something (we dont know what) that caused a common ancestor to all species to start branching into modern day species, over millions over years mind you.

I should add that, that is how I understand it.

....servival of the fittest. That's the natural selection of things.

the fittest? or that most prepared to adapt, themselves and 'their world?'

Adapt of course! I'm a fan of Darwin! I agree that the cockroach would be the one "species" if you will, to survive just about anything. Tough little buggers!

see, adaption could... entail what we have done to the planet... or, how our digits are changing, to accomodate XBox use... ?

I am of the thought that there was both a creation and an evolution. As for which came first...it would seem that a creation of a sort was initiated before the evolutionary process...and then there was yet another creation or should I say a genetic manipulation of an evolved creature with that of a higher being not native to this Earth. Biblically speaking it was a group of beings that "fashioned" man (Genetic splicing) from a creature already walking upright...The WE in the Old Testament. Sumerian history predates that of which we know as Biblical history by thousands of years.

Food for thought: If a mark was Placed on Cain for killing Able so that anyone coming into contact with him would know of his crime...who the heck was anybody if it was supposed to be only Adam, Eve, Cain, Able and their twin sisters (Apocryphal Books give more information than the diluted, control the masses, translation of the King James Version)

Creation and Evolution both happened...and no chicken and egg jokes.

If we look at the world as having been left alone and seeded as to evolve, seeded by beings whose purpose was to establish new worlds from those that would sustain life, rocky and barren as they were, a genetic soup mix infused into the creation of an atmosphere holding back the waters which would eventually turn to oceans...the creation story of Genesis.

Now we have the "creation" or coming about of man. But before that, let us say that the evolutionary process was directed to create a base for life support, an atmosphere, an environment that would support itself being "seeded" and that these "seeds" were brought here from different worlds by colonists, such as we are becoming..have we not already formulated plans for colonization of other worlds, especially Mars?

Well lets say that these beings, seeded this world with hundreds if not thousands of different types of life, everything from plants to animals and that they seeded the waters as well with creatures that would "evolve."

So evolution of this world takes place over a period of thousands of years,
and that it happened millions of years ago, time enough for the genetics of animals and all other life to "evolve" as they were "possibly" programmed to do, OR naturally did on other worlds.
What was the purpose of such large animals as dinosaurs? If we look at their genetic structure is a rather simple one almost as if they were bred for one purpose and only one purpose. Yes, so it seems that many of them did evolve into another form of creature or so science says. Science says a lot of things that seem plausible but as we go along through life we find that many of their theories have fault.

Well getting away from that for a while...who came first man or woman?
If we can understand and accept that we are simply a creation of an evolved creature then it would probably be easier to understand the theory of "divine intervention" or "cosmic design" every thing but the obvious which many humans seem to want to turn their backs on and would rather accept a nicely written story that has been misinterpreted for centuries...remembering that King James wanted the bible put together for only one purpose...mass control...just because these people had horrible sanitary conditions and to many may have seemed backwards, don't think for one minute that they were stupid...especially the hierarchy.

Off track again...sort of...any way...if human kind can accept that they were a "genetically manipulated form of life" taken from creatures that had evolved here on earth over a period of (X) amount of years...and that those beings who did the "shaping of man in their form, after their likeness" were possibly not just the seeders of this world...something which I doubt...but also the cultivators...and that IF the Sumerian texts are correct...Scientists really hated Sitchin, he blew their theories out of the water and their funding as well...And before anyone gets on me about Sitchin...I knew him personally at Colombia University so don't comment on him from the hearsay of others who hated his work simply because it was detrimental to their research and funding, I knew what was being said then and by whom and why.

So man or woman...who came first...how about male or female as a better form of wording. I would think that since this world was seeded, as we shall one day seed other worlds, that both were created at the same time in order to propagate the species on this Brave New World.

One more thing...the next question from the masses should be...Why Are We Here...

Another thing evolution is a funny thing. Sometimes things were not meant to evolve and simply be there as an addition to the life infused.

An example would be the Coelacanth. Discovered back in 1938 in South Africa...people were using it as a food fish..But how about this. There are photos of Sumerian art that depict priests wearing this same fish as a headpiece....hmmm So science got a swift kick in the arse on that one...was right in front of them and they didn't see it.

Kind of....there are actually about a dozen fish species that are still swimming around that should be...according to "scientists"...extinct.

Since then, other populations of Latimeria (the scientific name of the living coelacanth) were found in other places of the Indian Ocean:
off Comoros, Mozambique, Madagascar, Kenya, Tanzania, Sodwana Bay (South Africa).

Then there is the most beloved of them all..."Nessie"

Funny thing, scientists DO have under water photos of the "extinct" Plesiosaurus that ARE clear enough...But actually publishing them as a confirmation would endanger the species. No conspiracy here, just using the information they have to search out other possibilities. Could you even imagine what might happen if they actually admitted it to the public.

am curious, as to how and why species seem to ignore these genetic anomalies and .. just continue...

I think...No...I believe that the evolution of a particular species...possibly all of them at one time had actually hit that end point of evolving and rather improvised, adapted and overcame their environment.

It seems that those creatures that actually survived an extinction event are those that dwell in the oceans. The wooly mammoth for example, found their numbers frozen in water (ice) and survived, not continuing to live, but rather survived as a whole preserved in the ice. Many have been found intact but have been used for food in the past years of the 20th and early 21st century.

Scientists believe that certain creatures evolved from earlier forms that were larger in size and eventually became refashioned to a much slimmer form...the only thing is this...IF there was an extinction event and it was concentrated above water...then where did the animals that are here today evolve from.

And people...please do not quote scientists who themselves have a difficult time explaining this and even accepting their own theories and assumptions...but it sounds good and keeps their funding coming in...hmmm...interesting....educated whores with Phd's...what an intriguing concept.

I'd like to thank you for bringing up this question to topic. I hadn't really given the topic much thought previous. Found a very interesting article with an evolutionary reasoning why Chordates typically posess two eyes.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-02/920061344.Ev.r.html

Hard to tell if I ever would have found such an interesting read if you hadn't brought it up, thanks again!

Okay so if we are "seeded" from a bunch of other life forms, then how did -those- ones come about?

I'm rather confused.

ANYWAY. Two eyes.

I guess we haven't evolved further to need any more or less eyes as of yet. Our surroundings don't really require us to have more than two, but as we know having just one would remove our depth perception.

As foreign of a concept as evolution may seem, it's happening right now - in our very lifetime.
Man's overall height has increased to an average of 6 foot over the past few generations.

Our little toes are getting smaller and will eventually disappear, since we don't use or need them. We hardly use them for balance as our feet are stuck inside shoes most of the time.

So I guess I have to ask this; why are the eyes the most important evolutionary/designed feature?
Apart from them being the most prominent of our senses - which is definitely up for debate since there are more than five senses, most of which relate to our sense of touch rather than our sight.

Why did you pick out eyes over everything else?

besides being an exemplar?
They're a commonality amongst all species. giving us a depth of perception, for hunting and yet, other animal, other than man... do have 'better' eyes than us.

one could ask, why can't we see the same spectrum as cats per se?

or...


why did some animals evolve with sightless eyes, beneath sealed lids and, have stayed that way, for many thousands of years....

so many anomalies.

Pretty sure average height is still in the 5s. Last I checked it was at least and well its still my lifetime I believe. I would love to know if you have say a reference to credible sources for this info otherwise its pretty much hearsay.

The 6' thing?

Nreh, I can't remember where I heard that from, to be honest.
But the height of kids being born, I'm pretty sure the average height for a male born around '95 would be around six foot, if not just under. Obviously they're only 16 at the moment, though.

What I meant was that younger generations are progressively taller. I knew what I was trying to say, at least; sorry I said it in a stupid way! >_<

>Back to eyes..

The reason I'd say our eyes aren't as good as most other animals' is that one, we're dacturnal (obviously), and two, we don't use our eyes in the same ways.

Do we need to hunt every day for food? Of course not. We have a fridge for that.
Do other animals sit in front of a tv screen all day or play videogames? No. They have better things to do.
As such we use our bodies for vastly different purposes.

Our brains have to comprehend things like letters, words, numbers, we can recognise sounds like that of a plane or a car horn and know near enough instantly -what- it is, our ability to feel both physical and emotional pain, our ability to betray our instincts... This has all come through the way we live our lives in comparison to other species.

Our heightened understanding means that our brains don't necessarily rely on instinct an awful lot any more.

perhaps. but animals have the advantage over us, in that they don't need 'stuff' to live. we do.

and, if'n we don't use our eyes, as we could, arn't we wasting what we were given???

I believe that it is simply more convenient to have all the main sences close and near the brain. All can react and respond together quickly and most efficiently.

Having two eyes widens our view. Rabbits have eyes on the sides of their head to see all around their body to better spot dangers.

We all rather have the same defense in this manner. This may very well be higher evolutionary design for many living creatures to improve our rate of survival and experience.

I also believe that the eyes are the windows to one's soul. If our eyes are the windows, then our heads must be the house. There is often more than one window in a house.

literal and metaphysical... just luvvit.

aye. reasonable. I still wonder abiut 'the grand design'... I mean, no-one has attened to that other question, man or woman? 'who came first?'

Well, most people believe gods always were and are seen as beings of light and/or darkness, either a genderless entity or both, as well. I personally do not doubt this theory, so I'd answer simply with "both."

The always were part is what concerns me, everything has a beginning and if humanity were created then well what began what came before?

I suppose I forgot the quotation marks. That is how I hear it most often worded. I'm saying it was the gods, or the mysterious matter they are, who came first.

Oh and to answer the original question of course man came first hahaha!

yea...but thank the Creator of Whatever, Women came along to improve on the original design...:P

Why do we have two eyes? Speaking from the professional aspect of doing nothing else these past 15 years...but look at people's peepers...o.O....here's the factual take on it aside from the hunter/predator/rabbit perspective of Darwin's Evolution.

The Eyes come in pairs for gathering visual information as processed by the visual cortex of the brain....the eyes are actually...and extension of the brain AND the body. Essentially, while visual information is collected and deposited within the brain as a vital sense, the eyes also provide a view of the health of the whole body, including the brain.

While having a full field of vision might be important, not everyone has it..but this does not mean that your eye or eyes...whether you have one or two (accidents DO happen..and usually at home when you're NOT wearing your safety glasses hammering that nail...o.o)...the eyes also can tell your doctor (M.D./O.D. - Either one is good) whether or not you have systemic diseases...such as but certainly not limited to:

Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension aka High Blood Pressure, High Cholesterol, Blocked arteries/veins, Strokes (whether considered TIA's or major), Advanced AIDS, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Brain Tumor, Pseudo-brain Tumor, the list is endless....literally...o.O

Then there are diseases related to the eyes such as:

Glaucoma (a disease of the hydraulics system of the eye-yes...face it, the eye is more than an evolved sense of sight...it is a very intricate machine that even scientists today are still coming up short in replicating it...but they're getting close), Retinal Edema or Hemorrhages (caused by other systemic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension), Optic Nerve Edema (caused by Lupus, MS, or other Brain/neurological issues...edema is swelling btw), and the list goes on....

In fact...depending upon the interpretation of your "full field of vision"...can determine if whether or not you have any other issues....do you have glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure...have you had a minor stroke and didn't know it? Do you have a brain tumor? A visual field assessment can not only tell a doctor that you do, but also tell you EXACTLY where it is located at within the brain.

So do I believe in Intelligent Design?...You damn straight I do...the visual system alone has it's own Congressional Library of Anatomy and Physiology...it's more than a sense of sight...it tells you not only what is within the soul..but what is within the health of your body as well. Ever look into the dilated eyes of an advanced Alzheimer's patient...there's no reflex of light coming back because the brain literally is not aware or focused on you...not that the eye itself does not work....thus the saying..."the lights are on but no one is home"...;)

Hunter... witty... and yes, scientifically, that is "why?"

I just have this nagging doubt that leaves room for even more questions.. and why I asuppose, the spaceman theory doesn't sound so ludicrous. I mean, it does help explain those jumps in our evolutionary processes, doesn't it?

Well Neil, you posed the question of which gender came first, what I want to ask, is what is gender outside of genitalia? I mean sure they serve biological processes, but outside of that, is there any practical use for gender anyways?

there is only one I can think of, procreation.

that's it.

yet, it's kept us going for a couple of million years.

so theoretically, it's doing something right...

Lets really screw with you all..

What if....

We were created, then, evolved?

Just a thought.....

Note: I hold no doctrine of creationism or evolution.

Basically theistic evolution, which is the belief that god used evolution in creation once the foundation was in place. Not a new theory.

maybe... but it's one that if not discussed, lies fruitless is someone elses memory.

still go with Von Daniken Hunter **Grins**

Of course I recognize the aspect of procreation, but what I'm trying to ask is outside of that and outside of use for personal identity, what is gender anyways?

obviously the definition of the sexes, the sexes needed for procreation of the human species.

Ok, I am not going to sit here and keep repeating myself. I will do it one last time and that is it. I under-freaking-stand that genders are needed for the procreation of the human species. Ok. I get that. Understand it 100-freaking-percent.

The question I am asking is what is the use of gender ***OUTSIDE*** of procreation? Outside being defined here by meaning not including, just in case your wondering.

PoeticHeart are you referring to and trying to get an answer regarding Parthenogenesis?

The New Mexico whiptail is one of few species that has only female members. This animal, which is also the state reptile of New Mexico, reproduces solely through parthenogenesis, and males have become obsolete.

Sharks are another animal not known, until recently, to be able to reproduce by parthenogenesis.

In animals whose sex is determined by chromosomes as opposed to incubation temperature, all offspring created due to parthenogenesis will be the same sex. However, what sex that will be depends on the sex chromosome setup of the individual animal.
In some species, however, the like pairing of chromosomes, WW as it is called for these animals, creates a male, and the unlike pairing, WZ, creates a female. In parthenogenesis, each egg contains only one type of chromosome. This means that the only viable offspring created from parthenogenesis in these species will be male, as any ZZ embryos would not survive.

What I'm trying to do here is lead an auidence through a thinking process and not draw a map for them.

My belief is that gender, excluding procreation, does not matter. I think when someone looks at a person, they should see that person and not try and determine which set of genitals is bestowed upon their groin. I think by allowing your genitals to define you, you therefor limit yourself to what society would have you be.

I really don't know how to get anymore clearer on the what im trying to state. If anyone wants to debate me, fine. That's whatever. But if someone tries to and mentions reproduction Im just gonna give up.

Ok so social acceptance...without barriers..without judgments. I had to add the term "social acceptance" because living out side the box within society there are going to be those individuals who will judge according to an established "norm" which they define....NO...which is defined for them and they...if they have half a brain will not follow such a "socialist" view but instead will accept life and the living as it is engaged within the evolving species of man....I have to say evolving because without evolving mentally especially we are all doomed to a life of robotics and manual manipulation from a greater hierarchy.

Gender plays the part that it plays in most of the animal kingdom however you will be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't look at man and women differently even and I might say especially those who claim they are all about equality.

I understood where you were going... but, the two genders have the one purpose... no matter how one ties it up in a fancy bow, that's it.

the others... the one's man made and, man decided... have no biological function.

I have to agree to some degree with you Poetic Heart...I've often posed the question myself..whatever does gender have to do with sexuality or identity? However, for many...it has a great deal to do with how they think, perceive and treat others....hence there is always room for discrimination.

Being male or female or having the two for procreation alone makes no sense whatsoever....however, the adjoining of the two halves as energies shared regardless of what's between the legs is prevalent to me in finding wholeness and truth within one's self and discovering grace irregardless of one's sexual preferences based upon gender.

Even with two eyes, men and women are blind to the person in front of them that has no desire to be referred to in the third person...but has a name....perhaps Ashley will suffice as an example?

As Davy contributed earlier...procreation is not always achieved through male and female interaction, however the need for both energies is essential, to seek balance and "see" the depth of each and every creature...or person.

... the Yin to the Yang?

The male to the female?

I'm not intimating that there aren't other issues surrounding gender, but without male and female, any man made interventions wouldn't work either, yet.

At the present yes...however, if the evolutionary scale is to be considered a measuring stick for such events..then given the proper environment and stimuli...and even looking back along our own human genome...it is evident how the human DNA adapts and changes to ensure the survival of its descendants...regardless of gender...much as Hemochromatosis evolved as a genetic variant in response to a time when obtaining a level of iron from meat sources was close to nothing...this trait evolved within a group whose descendants now carry and live with this change in their genetic makeup.

none of which said anything to me, in relation to this topic. sorry.

you lost me.

we're designed to adapt. that's our design.

adapt, or die.

it takes two, currently to make a child... so, the process of adaption is a slow one, isn't it?

For a species to completely change its genome, it can take upward of a few thousand years.

...so perhaps, any adaption IS part of a grand design, whether it be divine, or accidental?

We have our eyes on the front of our head because we are predators. If we weren't they would be on the side of our heads. We also need two eyes because of being able to see in a radius around us. If we had one we wouldn't be able to see everything in front of us.

I agree with the above. :) Evolutionary science.
This thread reminds me of flounder fish lol. The way their eyes move over their heads.

Given our body shape and that we stand on two legs, it makes sense to me, that we have forward facing eyes. Considering we're social little monkeys, we don't really need eyes out the back of our heads because we're always with someone else, and our hearing's pretty good - though now great.

and the loners amongst Us, are thankful of good hearing, that allowed Us to hear the predators, before they got Us.

and having that brutal attack, we'd turn and use our eyes, to direct the spear toward our adversary; then run... very fast.

If you look at your body you’ll notice that you have two of most things. Two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, two lungs, two kidneys, even two clearly-defined halves to your brain. Look at almost every other animal and you’ll notice the same thing. Even insects have two “sets” of legs. Almost all animals have a very particular symmetry, called bilaterianism, or two-sidedness. The only exceptions, in fact, are very simple animals like sponges and jellyfish (even starfish are born with bilaterian symmetry; they change into five-sided shapes later in life.)So, why do we have it? The short answer is that bilaterian symmetry must have evolved very early in the animal kingdom. It is a basic template that virtually every complex animal is built around. You don’t have four nostrils or six hearts because evolution would need to throw out the entire basic structure for your body and start over from scratch to get there. Evolution likes small changes built onto rigid underlying structures, and bilaterianism is among the most rigid structure in the whole animal kingdom.
But that raises another question: why two sides and not three? I guess because if one gives out, the other one can take over, sort of like having two kidneys, two eyeballs, two testicles, two lungs, two arms,ect! I think its safe to say that we need exactly two eyes. We can make out depth that way. 1 is 1 too less and 3 is one too many. in my opinion I feel and think that everything has been designed by an intelligence of some kind. Whether it's evolution or universal mind, ect. It's still some form of intelligence in my way of thinking and everything is energy in some form! Energy there fore is life in what ever forms that it is in!