Did eyes evolve from meatballs?

Published July 16th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

After much thinking, I came up with a theory about evolution. Maybe our eyes evolved from meatballs, and our eyelashes were spaghetti!

– Jason


This theory sounds as plausible as some I’ve heard, but I am skeptical.  I know that we see the world through the lens of our religion, and even in matters of science we decide what is True by consensus, and that we are prone to accepting only what fits our already-decided ideology, but perhaps it’s time to demand more rigorous standards.  Or, dare I say it, accept the conclusions by the unGodly (FSM) heathens in academia.  Can there be some compromise?

Someone please set me straight, I think I am having a faith/reason crisis. 

68 Responses to “Did eyes evolve from meatballs?”

  1. Chickpeachick says:

    Dear fellow pastafarians. I think we are asking the wrong questions here. Couldn’t there be a mistake in interpretation/transcription/gender-biased view and these perfectly round shaped objects aren’t meatballs at all? As a vegan FSM I don’t know if HE is just testing my faith or if the noodles are there to protect a pair of sublime falafel?
    R’amen and plenty of sauce to all of you.

  2. TheDevil says:

    You put forth an interesting hypothesis…however, it’s widely believed (this is just a belief, not proven mind you) that complex eyes first evolved during the Cambrian explosion, a rapid burst of evolution, some 540 million years ago.

    It’s believed (this is just a belief, not proven mind you) that it began with very basic light processing photoreceptor cells and eventually evolved into the more complex and varied eyes we see in nature today.

    I think if you do a bit of research, you’ll find that meatballs are merely ball-shaped ground up meat products which are very tasty when cooked and have no light receptive qualities at all.

    • Keith says:

      It’s not a belief . From fossil evidence it is considered that Trilobites present a continuous example of the evolution of the eye from basic light receptors to compound eyes virtually the same as in some insects today. Read ” Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution.”
      by Richard Fortey

      • tekHedd says:

        Not a belief? So, what you’re saying is that you don’t believe the fossil evidence either?

        Look. The FSM could just as easily have created that fossil evidence when he created the rest of the world a few hundred years ago. Or whenever he did it.

        Primitive photoreceptors do *not* look like eyeballs. Meatballs do. It’s the “ball shape” thing. Spaghetti is long and thin, vaguely like eyelashes. But evolution is a myth put forth by “scientists” to control our children. Clearly the FSM made our eyes and eyelashes, and designed them to *look* like spaghetti and meatballs out of, well, if he was anybody else I would say it was vanity…

        Evolution! Paugh!

  3. m610 says:

    Concordance, on Youtube, recently did a nice analysis of the religiosity of faculty in higher education. It was in response to claims that academia is liberal-atheist and as such is shutting out other points of view, aka, kook creationists. Well, he did a good job dispelling that notion, noting that while the “no faith” camp is large, especially in some fields, the religious side is pretty broad, and yet in both camps the religion aspect hardly enters their work at all. That said, no where in this analysis, or the paper reviewed, does it mention FSM, therefore FSM is being shut out, denied an opportunity to contribute, and therefore the world is being cheated, being short-change, being held back in the dark age we now live in. The item in this discussion, the evolution of the eye, for example, may never see the light of day in academia, and that is a shame and a crime, and must be remedied. Does anyone here want to write a letter? ;)

  4. John Carter says:

    The only flaw I can see in Jason’s theory about eyes having evolved from meatballs is his admission that he arrived at it through a process of thought. This would appear to immediately disqualify it.

  5. chas says:

    It’s sound science – like our ears (which evolved from sticky pasta).

    Every credible scientist that I know would, in a scholarly and journalistic way, find this balls-to-eyes theory one of many quantum possibilities. The probability increases, no doubt, with the cubic centimeters of alcohol ingested as well as the Higgins Field in which one is playing ball.

  6. george says:

    I encourage all of you to refer to Richard Dawkins book, “The Blind Watchmaker”. There you will find a detailed explanation of how the eye evolved. Also it is evident that the FSM does not have meatballs for eyes. The meatball like objects are certainly his gonads and therefore it would be correct to say that FSM has big balls! Another point of confusion concerns the original Pastafarians (pirates). Absolutely pirates do/did not eat meatballs simply do to the fact that cows are in short supply on the high seas. Mostly they ate fish which is acceptable to those of us who also do not eat cows.

    There is one more question I would like to address to Mr. Henderson. With all due respect I am unable to reconcile your description of the FSM with your earlier statements that the FSM is an “invisible and undetectable” entity. How is it then that we are seeing all these elaborate images of him (or her)????? Please clarify.

    • midnight rider says:

      The FSM is simultaneously invisible and undetectable while also appearing in the form of spaghetti and meatballs. This is known as the Pasta Paradox. I really am disturbed by your lack of faith in the patently absurd. I will pray for you. :)

      • wulff says:

        Rider, let’s not be too hard on the man. Most people avoid a paradox. In this economy people can’t afford ONE doc let alone a pair of them.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Correct, Wulff. Most folks dont even have a “pair-a-dimes” these days.

        • wulff says:

          But that’s just my two cents :)

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Wulff, isn’t it nice to have our site back again? Where else can we practice our corny humor and actually have a few people read it without some dumbassed troll butting in.

          Ramen and a big howl for CoFSM

        • Omnipotent Zombie says:

          Ramen to that!

  7. Bengaul says:

    Yes I think that the meatball theory must be true. I mean, there were balls of meat before humans, and we were made in the image of the his noodliness, which as you will observe has meatballs for eyes. Pirates invariably have one eye. Some say this is because they have mistaken each others eyes for meatballs in grog fuelled pasta binges.

    Let there be sauce.

    • Keith says:

      I thought pirates had one eye because they occasionally had salt water sprayed in their eyes. Sratching an irritation is not a good idea when your arm terminates in a hook.

      • Ed says:

        You have leapt to an understandable, but quite possibly incorrect, assumption – that pirates had only one eye, and wore the traditional eyepatch to keep flies and beer bottle tops from inadvertantly entering their skulls thru the empty socket. A “reliable source” has recently disclosed that pirates wore the eye patch because a) it looked cool; b) chicks dug it; and c) sunglasses had not yet been invented

        • Keith says:

          But then surely if you wore two eye patches you’d look twice as cool and have twice as many chicks/guys. Yes, I know you’d end up walking off the side of the ship but sometimes fashion is prized much higher than common sense.

        • Ed says:

          Hmmm, this could be true – but if you wore two eye patches, you really couldn’t tell what the chicks/guys looked like (yeah, so I’m a bit shallow). I’ll agree that fashion is frequently prized more than common sense – but as I walk down the street and see women wearing incredibly tight jeans, I praise the Gods of Fashion…

        • Keith says:

          You wouldn’t praise anything if you saw what wears tight jeans around where I live. Even I can tell when someone is ugly due to their own negligence and not accident of birth.

  8. TiltedHorizon says:

    I think I’ll put me fundie hat on and say if eyes evolved from meatballs then why are there still meatballs?

    • John Carter says:

      Good question. But – and this can be verified scientifically by a trip to any East End chip shop – the missing link is clearly the ordinary whelk. You simply have to venture out of your Italianate comfort zone of a Saturday night.

      • TiltedHorizon says:

        Any other suggestions? As a Yank it may be awhile before I can justify a trek to Pembroke for snails.

Leave a Reply