{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/7/2015 5:31:59 AM
1
Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. I admit to not knowing the rest of the quote, but since Darwin assumed that it was caused by Natural Selection in minuet stages over ever-changing moments in human biology, would that not mean that our eyes are still "evolving" into something more complex than now, or was that just Darwin speculating, and if yes that the eye is evidently ever-changing, would that not mean that anything determine as complex would have to evolve into something slightly more complex in the next generation?
English
-
Things don't change unless there is a need for them to do so. If our eyes are serving there purpose adequately, why would they keep changing if there are no environmental pressures pushing them to change? Evolution doesn't state that things keep changing for the sake of change. They keep changing only when natural selection requires them to do so. If its good enough, it has no reason to change, and it won't outside of standard mutation.
